University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A dialogic reading intervention for parents of children with Down syndrome

(USC Thesis Other)

A dialogic reading intervention for parents of children with Down syndrome

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS i i

A Dialogic Reading Intervention for Parents of Children with Down Syndrome
Carey E. Regur

________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS ii
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my husband, Dr. Steve Regur, for inspiring me to venture
down this path and for his enduring love, patience, understanding, and advice throughout the
process. Also to my parents, Marc and Ann Ebersberger, for instilling in me a value for
education and providing relentless support and encouragement, and to my brother, Dr. Lee
Ebersberger, for serving as a model of persistence in the face of adversity. Finally, to my son,
Abel Jackson Regur, and my daughter, Greta Jayne Regur:
Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined.
-Henry David Thoreau

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi, for
your humor, guidance, and support throughout the dissertation process. To the other members of
my committee, Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores and Dr. Pat Gallagher, I thank you for your critical
insight and feedback. To the program directors, Mrs. Kathy McDaniel and Mrs. Nancy Littlekin,
and all of the parents and children who participated in this study, thank you for taking a chance
on me and for working so enthusiastically to reach your goals. To the dynamic teachers who
bookended my educational career, Mrs. Paula Schwab, my kindergarten teacher who motivated
me to become an educator and Dr. Sean Early, who taught me something I thought I could never
learn, thank you for your inspiration. To my work colleagues, Mrs. Jennifer McDonald, Mrs.
Julie Arenson, and Mrs. Sandy Shakes, thank you for your daily encouragement and
cheerleading. To Dr. Sebastian Cognetta and Mrs. Susie Cognetta, thank you for encouraging me
to become a Trojan. A special thanks to my husband, parents, children, and in-laws for the
ongoing support you provided throughout this process.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ................................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ vii

Abstract .................................................................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

Background of the Problem ........................................................................................................ 2

Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................ 4

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 6

Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 6

Significance of the Study ............................................................................................................ 7

Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 8

Assumptions ................................................................................................................................ 9

Definition of Terms ..................................................................................................................... 9

Organization of the Study ......................................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 12

The Cognitive Phenotype of Individuals with Down Syndrome .............................................. 12

Executive Function in Individuals with Down Syndrome .................................................... 13

Working Memory in Individuals with Down Syndrome ...................................................... 13

Language Development in Individuals with Down Syndrome ............................................. 16

Developmental Pathways in Individuals with Down Syndrome: Delay or Difference? .......... 18

Methodology for Determining Delay or Difference ............................................................. 19

Delays and Differences in Working Memory ....................................................................... 20

Delays and Differences in Language .................................................................................... 22

Delays and Differences in Social Cognition, Problem Solving, and Error Patterns ............. 24

Literacy Development and Instruction ...................................................................................... 26

Profile of Reading Achievement in Individuals with Down Syndrome ............................... 26

Limits in Learning Opportunities for Individuals with Down Syndrome ............................. 27

Literacy Skill Development in Individuals with Down Syndrome ....................................... 28

The Debate over Sight Word Based versus Phonics Based Instructional Interventions ....... 29

Intensive, Comprehensive Instructional Approaches ........................................................... 34

Instruction to Support Comprehension ................................................................................. 36

The Home Literacy Environment ............................................................................................. 37

Family Influences on the Literacy Development of Typically Developing Children .......... 38

Home Literacy Experiences of Children with Intellectual Disabilities ................................ 43

Dialogic Reading ...................................................................................................................... 48

Dialogic Reading as a Strategy to Support Oral Language Development and Comprehension
............................................................................................................................................... 48

Parent Motivation: Beliefs, Expectations, and Self-Efficacy ................................................... 53

Influence of Parent Beliefs on Children’s Achievement and Motivation ............................. 54

Self-Efficacy ......................................................................................................................... 58

Characteristics of Effective Parent Training Programs ............................................................ 63

Tutoring Activities and Styles .............................................................................................. 63

Instructional Design of Effective Parent Training Programs ................................................ 64

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 67

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS v
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 70

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 70

Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 71

Research Design ........................................................................................................................ 72

Population and Sample ............................................................................................................. 75

Population ............................................................................................................................. 75

Instrumentation ......................................................................................................................... 78

Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 80

Dialogic Reading Intervention .................................................................................................. 81

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 87

Summary ................................................................................................................................... 89

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 90

Intercorrelations ........................................................................................................................ 90

Research Question 1: Is there a difference in pre/post parent self-efficacy scales after
participation in an intervention designed to teach parents of children with Down syndrome
dialogic reading strategies? ....................................................................................................... 93

Results for Parent Self-Efficacy Pre and Post Participation in the Dialogic Reading
Intervention ........................................................................................................................... 93

Research Question 2: How do parent behaviors change during parent-child book reading after
participation in an intervention designed to teach parents of children with Down syndrome
dialogic reading strategies? ....................................................................................................... 99

Results for Parent Behaviors Pre and Post Participation in the Dialogic Reading Intervention
............................................................................................................................................... 99

Research Question 3: Is there a relationship between self-efficacy for dialogic reading and
practices during parent-child book reading for parents of children with Down syndrome? .. 106

Results for Relationship between Parent Self-Efficacy and Parent Behaviors: Pre
Intervention ......................................................................................................................... 107

Results for Relationship between Parent Self-Efficacy and Parent Behaviors: Post
Intervention ......................................................................................................................... 107

Research Question 4: What are the observable behaviors of children with Down syndrome
during parent-child book reading? .......................................................................................... 109

Results for Child Behaviors Pre and Post Parent Participation in the Dialogic Reading
Intervention ......................................................................................................................... 109

Results for Pre Intervention Correlations between Parent and Child Behaviors ................ 113

Results for Post Intervention Correlations between Parent and Child Behaviors .............. 115

Summary ................................................................................................................................. 121

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 124

Significant Findings ................................................................................................................ 125

Extending the Literacy Development of Children with Down Syndrome beyond the School
Day ...................................................................................................................................... 126

Parent Perceptions of Successes and Challenges when Reading with their Child ............. 127

Training Parents in Dialogic Reading Techniques ............................................................. 127

Use of Job Aides to Support Dialogic Reading Practices ................................................... 129

Parent Self-Efficacy for Parent-Child Book Reading ......................................................... 131

Parent Use of Dialogic Reading Strategies ......................................................................... 132

Relationship between Self-Efficacy and Practice ............................................................... 133

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS vi
Child Behaviors during Dialogic Reading .......................................................................... 134

Implications ............................................................................................................................. 135

Implications for Parents of Children with Down Syndrome .............................................. 135

Implications for District and School Personnel who Support Families of Children with
Down Syndrome ................................................................................................................. 136

Implications for Alternative Programs that Serve Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities
............................................................................................................................................. 137

Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 138

Delimitations ....................................................................................................................... 139

Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................. 139

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 142

References ............................................................................................................................... 144

APPENDIX A: parent self-efficacy scale for dialogic reading .................................................. 167

APPENDIX B: Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-child book reading .............................. 171

APPENDIX C: Interview Questions (Pre Intervention) ............................................................. 172

APPENDIX D: Parent Perception Survey .................................................................................. 173

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS vii
List of Tables
Table 1 Timeline for Data Collection ........................................................................................... 74
Table 2 Parent Race ...................................................................................................................... 75
Table 3 Parent Highest Level of Education .................................................................................. 76
Table 4 Age of Children ............................................................................................................... 76
Table 5 Length of Participation in the Together is Better Literacy Program ............................... 77
Table 6 Correlations for Pre and Post Self-Efficacy and Behavior Composite Scores ................ 91
Table 7 T Test for Pre and Post Parent Self-Efficacy Scores ....................................................... 94
Table 8 Mean and Standard Deviation for Parent Self-Efficacy Scores ....................................... 94
Table 9 T Test for Pre and Post Parent Behavior Scores ............................................................ 100
Table 10 Mean and Standard Deviation for Parent Behavior Scores ......................................... 100
Table 11 T Test Pre and Post Parent Behaviors using the PEER Sequence ............................... 102
Table 12 Mean and Standard Deviation for Parent Behaviors using the PEER Sequence ......... 102
Table 13 Correlations for Post Intervention Parent Self-Efficacy and Behavior Scores ............ 108
Table 14 T Test Pre and Post Child Behaviors ........................................................................... 111
Table 15 Mean and Standard Deviation for Child Behaviors ..................................................... 111
Table 16 Correlations for Pre Intervention Parent and Child Behaviors .................................... 114
Table 17 Correlations for Post Intervention Parent and Child Behaviors .................................. 116

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS viii
Abstract
This study attempted to address the reading comprehension and oral language challenges
faced by children with Down syndrome by exploring the use of dialogic reading by parents. The
study focuses on four research questions (1) Is there a difference in pre/post parent self-efficacy
scales after participation in an intervention designed to teach parents of children with Down
syndrome dialogic reading strategies? (2) How do parent behaviors change during parent-child
book reading after participation in an intervention designed to teach parents of children with
Down syndrome dialogic reading strategies? (3) Is there a relationship between self-efficacy for
dialogic reading and practices during parent-child book reading for parents of children with
Down syndrome? and (4) What are the observable behaviors of children with Down syndrome
during parent-child book reading? Twenty-eight children with Down syndrome and their parents
were recruited from a tutoring program designed specifically for families of children with the
disability. The subjects participated in a non-randomized, correlational study of a dialogic
reading intervention using a pre/post design. Data included two quantitative methods, a self-
efficacy scale and the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-child book reading (Dixon-Krauss,
Januszka, & Chae, 2010), and two qualitative methods, parent interviews and observations of
parent-child book reading experiences. This study provides evidence that parent self-efficacy and
practices employed during parent-child book reading improved after participation in a dialogic
reading intervention, and that self-efficacy relates to practice. The reading behaviors children
exhibited during parent-child book reading improved significantly after their parents’
participation in a dialogic reading intervention and the children’s behaviors correlated with their
parents’ behaviors. Given that the constraints of the traditional school day may not allow for
adequate time and intensity of instruction to improve the oral language and reading
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS ix
comprehension of children with Down syndrome, training parents to implement dialogic reading
techniques in the home setting may provide additional opportunities to supplement literacy
development for the population.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Down syndrome is the most prevalent genetic form of intellectual disability (Sherman, Allen,
Bean, & Freeman, 2007). In the United States, approximately 5,000 babies are born annually
with Down syndrome, with estimated incidents of one birth in 732. In individuals with Down
syndrome, a chromosomal abnormality, trisomy of chromosome 21, causes impairments in both
physical and cognitive development (Silverman, 2007). While individuals with Down syndrome
share a specific phenotype, significant variation in cognitive abilities, behavior, and development
exists across the population (Fidler & Nadel, 2007; NICHCY, 2010; Petrill & Justice, 2007;
Silverman, 2007). Due to the observed variation in cognitive ability, individuals with Down
syndrome are served effectively in family and educational settings where their unique talents and
capacities are recognized and reinforced (NICHCY, 2010).
The ability to read is a critical factor in the academic success of children (Neuman &
Dickinson, 2002). While a robust body of research examines the literacy development of
typically developing students in traditional educational contexts, limited research exists
exploring the applicability of these findings to individuals with intellectual disabilities. Intense
amounts of repetition and practice on critical literacy skills are needed to produce meaningful
gains for children with intellectual disabilities, however, providing instruction of sufficient
intensity within the context of the school setting alone proves a challenge (Allor, Champlin,
Gifford, & Mathes, 2010). Individuals with intellectual disabilities may therefore supplement or
supplant their education with learning experiences in alternative contexts. More research is
needed to explore the facilitation of literacy development in alternative settings and the impact of
alternative educational experiences on student achievement and academic success for individuals
with intellectual disabilities.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 2
Background of the Problem
Silverman (2007) described the cognitive phenotype of individuals with Down syndrome,
noting weaknesses in expressive language, syntactic/morphosyntactic processing, and verbal
working memory. Fidler and Nadel (2007) also noted individuals with Down syndrome
demonstrate an information processing profile with strengths in visual processing and implicit
memory, and deficits in verbal processing and explicit memory. The authors found that,
compared to typically developing children, the population exhibits observable regressions and
unstable skills. In individuals with Down syndrome, receptive language level is a more accurate
indicator of their true level of understanding than is expressive language level.
There is a debate in the literature as to whether children with Down syndrome follow the
same developmental pathway as typically developing children at a delayed rate, or whether their
development follows a different pathway altogether (Wishart, 1993). Petrill and Justice (2007)
reviewed behavioral genetic findings related to the cognitive and academic skills of individuals
with Down syndrome and came to three main conclusions. The authors noted a developmental
variation in the relative importance of genes and environment for individuals with Down
syndrome. While both genetics and the environment accounted for covariance in the academic
performance for individuals with Down syndrome, genetics accounted for a greater portion of the
covariance. Although some characteristics of children with Down syndrome differed
qualitatively from typically developing children, other characteristics appear to fall on the same
continuum of ability, just at a lower level. Understanding the academic attainments of
individuals with Down syndrome across ability groups ad age groups will help policy makers,
educators, and parents have a clearer understanding of appropriate standards and expectations for
the population (Turner & Alborz, 2003).
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 3
Current literature concurs that comprehensive, explicit, and extended instructional
opportunities support improved cognition in children with Down syndrome. Couzens, Haynes,
and Cuskelly (2012) found early, consistent opportunities to learn academic content facilitated
the cognitive development of children with Down syndrome. There exists an important window
of opportunity for early intervention for children with Down syndrome, as some areas of
functioning become more impaired than others throughout development; additionally, these
differences are not necessarily uniform across the population (Fidler & Nadel, 2007). Rix (1999)
also found that children with Down syndrome who get early reading instruction have improved
speech, language, and short-term memory skills. Allor, Mathes, Roberts, Cheatham, and
Champlin (2010) concur, noting that students with intellectual disabilities made reading gains in
phonological awareness, phonics, and fluency when given consistent, explicit, comprehensive,
and extended reading instruction. While intense amounts of repetition and practice on critical
literacy skills are needed to produce meaningful gains for children with intellectual disabilities,
providing intensive instruction in the school setting is challenging (Allor, Champlin, Gifford, &
Mathes, 2010).
Evidence supports dialogic reading as a strategy parents can employ at home to develop
oral language and reading comprehension for both typically developing children and children
with disabilities (Dale, Crain-Thoreson, Notari-Syerson, & Cole, 1996; Flynn, 2011; Huebner &
Payne, 2010; Jordan, Miller, & Riley, 2011; Whitehurst, Falco, Lonigan, Fischel, DeBarysche,
Valdez-Menchaca, & Caufield, 1988). Dialogic reading is an interactive method of shared
reading in which the child leads the storytelling and the adult acts as a facilitator of oral language
development and comprehension by asking questions and expanding the child’s responses.
Motivational factors may influence a parent’s choice to implement dialogic reading as a home
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 4
based reading strategy, their persistence in implementing dialogic reading techniques on a
regular basis, and the mental effort invested as they engage in dialogic reading practices with
their child.
Parent motivation, including beliefs, expectations, and self-efficacy correlate with the
behaviors parents employ to prepare their children for academic success. Parent beliefs impact
the achievement and motivational strategies their children select and apply (Sigel, 1992). While
research confirms a relationship between parent beliefs and children’s academic performance,
the strength and nature of the relationship is unclear (Stephenson, Parrila, Georgiou, & Kirby,
2008). For both parents of typically developing children and parents of children with disabilities,
high parental self-efficacy correlates with practices that enhance children’s development
(Hastings & Brown, 2002; Steca, Bassi, Caprara, & Faye, 2011). Alternative learning contexts,
such as those facilitated by parents in the home setting, serve as an additional opportunity
beyond the traditional school day in which parents may provide the extended instruction required
to improve academic development in children with Down syndrome.
Statement of the Problem
How can parents gain the knowledge and self-efficacy necessary to employ dialogic
reading strategies in the home setting to improve the reading comprehension and expressive
language of children with Down syndrome? While explicit, comprehensive, and extended
reading instruction that incorporates intensive repetition and practice is required to support the
literacy acquisition of children with intellectual disabilities, providing sufficient opportunities for
such instruction within the timeframe of the traditional school day proves arduous (Allor,
Champlin, Gifford, & Mathes, 2010). The home setting may extend the learning setting to allow
students to practice newly acquired literacy skills, and a student’s family members play a key
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 5
role in supporting this extended literacy development. Although home literacy experiences,
including parent–child book reading and parental beliefs about reading, account for a variance in
children’s later reading achievement, research on literacy development within the context of the
home is limited for children with cognitive disabilities (Trenholm & Mirenda, 2006; van der
Schuit, Peeters, Segers, van Balkom, & Verhoeven, 2009). Future research into the home literacy
experiences of individuals with cognitive disabilities may provide further insight into effective
practice.
Although reading comprehension poses a particular challenge for individuals with
intellectual disabilities, limited research about effective instructional strategies specific to the
population exists (Morgan, Moni, & Jobling, 2004). Available research indicates dialogic
reading may serve as a promising strategy for developing reading comprehension and expressive
language in children with intellectual disabilities (Jordan, Miller, & Riley, 2011). Parents of
children with intellectual disabilities may extend to the home the comprehension skills and
expressive language children learn within the school setting through the use of dialogic reading
practices. Parents with high self-efficacy for dialogic reading may be more likely to successfully
implement the practices with their children.
Self-efficacy beliefs affect how individuals think, feel, motivate themselves, and behave
(Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy reflects a specific, situational perspective, as opposed to self-
concept and self-confidence, which are global in nature (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008).
Training in dialogic reading practices may improve the self-efficacy of parents when engaged in
parent-child book reading activities designed to improve the comprehension of children with
intellectual disabilities. In order to effectively implement dialogic reading strategies in the home
setting to improve the reading comprehension and expressive language of children with Down
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 6
syndrome, parents may require knowledge of dialogic reading strategies and sufficient self-
efficacy to successfully employ the strategies.
Purpose of the Study
The first purpose of this study is to determine whether participation in an intervention
designed to teach parents of children with Down syndrome dialogic reading strategies relates to
their self-efficacy for reading with their children. The second purpose is to determine whether
participation in an intervention designed to teach parents of children with Down syndrome
dialogic reading strategies relates to the practices parents employ when reading with their
children. The third purpose is to determine if there is a relationship between self-efficacy for
dialogic reading and the practices parents of children with Down syndrome employ during
parent-child book reading. The final purpose of the study is to determine the behaviors children
exhibit during parent-child book reading.
Research Questions
The study addresses four research questions:
1. Is there a difference in pre/post parent self-efficacy scales after participation
in an intervention designed to teach parents of children with Down syndrome
dialogic reading strategies?
2. How do parent behaviors change during parent-child book reading after
participation in an intervention designed to teach parents of children with Down
syndrome dialogic reading strategies?
3. Is there a relationship between self-efficacy for dialogic reading and
practices during parent-child book reading for parents of children with Down
syndrome?
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 7
4. What are the observable behaviors of children with Down syndrome during
parent-child book reading?
Significance of the Study
While children with Down syndrome experience challenges in expressive oral language
and reading comprehension, most school based reading programs for the population focus on
aspects of reading at the word recognition level, either through sight word or phonics instruction.
Although many children with Down syndrome require extensive and comprehensive reading
interventions to achieve academic success, achieving the required level of intensity is difficult
within the time constraints and context of the typical school day. Parents therefore play a critical
role in providing support for the development of oral language and reading comprehension skills
through additional time engaged in adult-child book reading and the employment of specific
practices to improve expressive language and reading comprehension.
This research study provides information about the relationship between the participation
of parents of children with Down syndrome in a dialogic reading intervention and their self-
efficacy for parent-child book reading. The study also examines the relationship between parent
participation in a dialogic reading intervention and parent behaviors during parent-child book
reading. As self-efficacy serves as a predictor of successful task completion (Bandura, 1986), the
research study provides correlational information about the self-efficacy of parents of children
with Down syndrome to engage in dialogic reading behaviors and the actual practices they
employ during parent-child book reading. The research study also offers information about the
behaviors of children with Down syndrome during parent-child book reading and how children’s
behaviors relate to those of their parents.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 8
In order to extend the time students with intellectual disabilities engage in literacy tasks,
district and school personnel may use the information from this study to implement interventions
for parents designed to improve parent self-efficacy and practices for parent-child book reading.
Parents of children with intellectual disabilities may apply the modified dialogic reading
practices taught during the intervention when reading with their children to improve oral
language and reading comprehension. Finally, learning programs for individuals with intellectual
disabilities, such as after school tutoring programs, may benefit from the research in two ways.
Such programs may apply the modified dialogic reading practices when tutors or interventionists
engage in adult-child book reading activities with children with disabilities. The programs may
also benefit from the inclusion of parent interventions focused on both building parent skill for
dialogic reading and improving parent self-efficacy for parent-child book reading.
Methodology
In order to determine the effectiveness of the dialogic reading intervention, the researcher
conducted a non-randomized, correlational study of a dialogic reading intervention. The
researcher gathered quantitative data from a self-efficacy survey and a dialogic reading
inventory, and qualitative data from parent interviews and observation of dialogic reading
experiences. The study used a pre/post design that includes two occasions of measurement. The
first occasion of measurement occurred prior to the intervention, the second occurred within a
month after the intervention to determine parental self-efficacy for dialogic reading, parent
dialogic reading practices, and student behaviors during dialogic reading. The researcher used
multiple measures to collect data, including two quantitative methods, a self-efficacy scale and
the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-child book reading (Dixon-Krauss, Januszka, & Chae,
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 9
2010), and three qualitative methods, parent interviews, observations of parent-child book
reading experiences, and a parent perception survey.
Assumptions
For the purpose of this study, the researcher assumed: (a) subjects responded honestly to
the self-efficacy survey and parent interview questions, (b) the intervention practices for parents
implemented at one alternative literacy program may be appropriate for other alternative literacy
programs, and (c) the research regarding dialogic reading practices for adults working with
children with language delays and disabilities will apply to adults working with children with
Down syndrome.
Definition of Terms
Dialogic reading: an interactive method of shared reading in which the adult acts as a facilitator
of oral language development and comprehension by asking questions and expanding the child’s
responses and the child leads the storytelling (Whitehurst et al., 1988).
Down syndrome: Down syndrome is a condition caused by a chromosomal abnormality, the
trisomy of chromosome 21, resulting in changes to the brain and physical development.
Individuals with Down syndrome demonstrate wide variation in mental abilities, behavior, and
development (National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, 2010).
Reading comprehension: an active process by which the reader engages in intentional thinking to
construct meaning through text and reader interactions (National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, 2000).
Self-efficacy: self-efficacy refers to perceived competence within a specific action or skill within
a broader domain (Bandura, 1986). Compared to self-concept and self-confidence, which are
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 10
global in nature, self-efficacy reflects a specific, situational perspective (Shunk, Pintrich, &
Meece, 2008).
Working memory: is the part of the brain responsible for temporary storage and management of
information required to execute complex cognitive tasks. Working memory involves selecting
information from sensory memory, organizing the information, and integrating new information
with prior knowledge (Mayer, 2008).
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of the study has presented the introduction, the background of the problem, the
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the questions to be answered, the research
hypotheses, the significance of the study, a brief description of the methodology, the
assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and the definitions of terms.
Chapter 2 is a review of relevant literature. It addresses the following topics: the
cognitive phenotype of individuals with Down syndrome, the debate over whether the cognitive
phenotype of individuals with Down syndrome represents a delay or a difference compared to
typically developing peers, literacy development and instruction for individuals with Down
syndrome, the influence of the home literacy environment, dialogic reading, parent motivational
factors, and characteristics of effective parent training.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in the study, including the research design;
population and sampling procedure; and the instruments and their selection or development,
together with information on validity and reliability. Each of these sections concludes with a
rationale, including strengths and limitations of the design elements. The chapter goes on to
describe the procedures for data collection and the plan for data analysis. Chapter 4 presents the
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 11
results of the study. Chapter 5 discusses and analyzes the results, culminating in conclusions and
recommendations.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 12
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Extensive and intensive instruction in reading comprehension is necessary for children
with Down syndrome to achieve academic success (Fidler & Nadel, 2007). Implementing
interventions with a sufficient level of intensity proves challenging within the time constraints
and context of a traditional educational setting. Parents serve as potential partners for supporting
the development of oral language and reading comprehension skills during parent-child book
reading interactions, specifically, dialogic reading (Whitehurst et al., 1998). Self-efficacy
predicts successful task completion (Bandura, 1986); therefore, parents with higher self-efficacy
for parent-child book reading should in theory implement those practices with greater fidelity. In
particular, this review will explore literature in the following areas (a) the cognitive phenotype of
individuals with Down syndrome, (b) a discussion of delays and differences when comparing
individuals with Down syndrome to typically developing individuals, (c) literacy development
and instruction for individuals with Down syndrome, (d) the home literacy environment of
individuals with Down syndrome, (e) dialogic reading, (f) parent motivation, and (g)
characteristics of effective parent training programs. Finally, the review will suggest using a
dialogic reading intervention for parents of children with Down syndrome to improve parental
self-efficacy and the practices parents employ during parent-child book reading.
The Cognitive Phenotype of Individuals with Down Syndrome
While individuals with Down syndrome share a cognitive phenotype, there is
considerable variability in the manifestation of specific characteristics across the population.
Such characteristics include deficits in executive function, limits on working memory, strengths
in visual over verbal skills, and strengths in receptive vocabulary over expressive language
(Silverman, 2007). Determining a cognitive phenotype for individuals with Down syndrome is a
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 13
complicated endeavor due to the complexity of the genotype, the spectrum of differences across
the population, and the temporal span of brain development.
Executive Function in Individuals with Down Syndrome
Individuals with Down syndrome display deficits in executive function (Lanfranchi,
Jerman, Dal Pont, Alberti, & Vianello, 2010; Rowe, Lavender, & Turk, 2010; Silverman, 2007).
Executive functions are a set of interrelated abilities involved in complex cognitions, including
solving problems, behavioral adaptations, forming concepts, task switching, and planning (Elliott,
2003, Lanfranchi et al., 2010). While primarily associated with the prefrontal cortex, multiple
areas of the brain are involved in executive function (Cummings, 1993; Elliott, 2003). Elliott
(2003) also notes that deficits in executive function result in challenges in accomplishing goals,
disinhibition of behavior, and poor behavioral controls.
In their study of adolescents with Down syndrome, Lanfranchi et al. (2010) found that the
subjects performed at a lower level in the areas of verbal working memory, planning, inhibition,
set shifting, and conceptual shifting when compared with a control group of typically developing
children matched for mental age. When compared to individuals with Down syndrome to
individuals with learning disabilities, Rowe et al. (2010) found that individuals with Down
syndrome demonstrated significantly lower performance on tests of executive function.
Working Memory in Individuals with Down Syndrome
Working memory, a crucial aspect of executive function, requires the temporary storage
and manipulation of information to complete a task (Lanfranchi et al., 2010). Lee, Pennington,
and Keenan (2010) note a predictive relationship between working memory and vocabulary
acquisition. Baddeley (1986) proposed a cognitive framework for working memory comprised of
three components: the phonological loop, the visuo-spatial sketchpad, and the central executive.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 14
The phonological loop temporarily stores and preserves speech-based information
through two parts, the phonological store and the sub vocal rehearsal process (Schuchardt,
Maehler, & Hasselhorn, 2011). Unless rehearsed, the phonological information quickly
deteriorates (Baddeley & Jarrold, 2007). The phonological store and sub vocal rehearsal process
facilitate language acquisition by allowing an individual to refresh the memory path and translate
printed words into phonological representations.
The visuo-spatial sketchpad serves a similar storage and maintenance function for visual
and spatial information (Baddeley, 1986). The sketchpad includes components specific to both
static and dynamic visual information. The central executive controls the overall attention
control system of working memory and regulates both the phonological loop and the visuo-
spatial sketchpad. Baddeley and Jarrold (2007) added a fourth component to the model, the
episodic buffer, which operates as an interface between working memory, long-term memory,
and perception.
Deficits in memory functions, specifically the capacity of working memory, characterize
individuals with intellectual disabilities (Schuchardt, Maehler, & Hasselhorn, 2011). The
literature concurs that individuals with Down syndrome demonstrate stronger visual than verbal
skills. Baddeley and Jarrold (2007) suggested that, while individuals with Down syndrome
experience a deficit in the phonological loop, the visuo-spatial sketchpad functioning aligns to
the individual’s level of intellectual ability. For individuals with Down syndrome, poor verbal
short-term memory is linked to insufficient phonological store (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990).
Insufficient phonological store results from inefficient analysis of phonological information, loss
of information, and reduced capacity. Fidler and Nadel (2007) also found the impairments to
working memory in individuals with Down syndrome limited to the verbal domain, however,
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 15
Lanfranchi, Baddeley, Gathercole, & Vianello (2012) found that impairment in executive
function applied not only to verbal tasks, but to dual tasks that required both verbal and visual
processing.
In a study examining the contributions of phonology and semantics to the verbal short-
term memory deficit in individuals with Down syndrome, Lee, Pennington, & Keenan (2010),
established that phonological deficiencies contributed to the deficit, but semantics did not. For
children with intellectual disabilities, Henry and Winfield (2010) found that phonological short-
term memory predicted reading and spelling performance, accounting for one third of the
variance in each skill. The authors also noted that reading success for children with intellectual
disabilities related to their ability to refresh phonological information within working memory.
The findings from Henry and Winfield conflict with two previous studies (Bayliss, Jarrold,
Baddeley, & Leigh, 2005; Alloway & Temple, 2007), neither of which established a relationship
between working memory and reading and spelling for children with intellectual disabilities.
Henry and Winfield (2010) account for the contrary findings by noting that the measures used in
their study required only single word reading and spelling in contrast to the complex measures
used in the previous studies.
In summary, individuals with Down syndrome experience deficits in executive function
and impairments in working memory. While the visuo-spatial sketchpad of individuals with
Down syndrome appears to remain intact comparable to their intellectual ability level,
researchers attribute deficits in working memory to the phonological loop. Individuals with
Down syndrome therefore exhibit relative strengths in visual processing and challenges in tasks
requiring verbal or dual processing.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 16
Language Development in Individuals with Down Syndrome
In addition to limits on working memory, individuals with Down syndrome demonstrate
broad deficits in language when compared to typically developing children (Næss, Lyster, Hulme,
& Melby-Lervag, 2011). Abbeduto, Warren, and Conners (2007) noted that, of all of the
domains affected by Down syndrome, language is one of the most impaired, and that these
impairments often prevent the inclusion of individuals with Down syndrome in their
communities. For individuals with Down syndrome, there are social and motivational
consequences related to language difficulties (Fidler & Nadel, 2007). Within a classroom context,
challenges with expressive language and intelligibility of speech can lead to frustration on the
part of individuals with Down syndrome, as the individual may need to repeat themselves to be
understood. To overcome the challenges associated with producing longer utterances, individuals
with Down syndrome may require additional motivation.
While language is an area of weakness in the cognitive profile for individuals with Down
syndrome, the affected components of the domain and the severity of the deficit varies across the
population (Lanfranchi et al., 2012). Chapman (1997), Fidler & Nadel (2007), Lanfranchi et al.
(2012), and Silverman (2007) all noted a discrepancy between receptive and productive language
skills in individuals with Down syndrome, with receptive language level serving as a more
accurate indicator of comprehension than expressive language level. Individuals with Down
syndrome experience more severe deficits in syntax than in vocabulary learning and pragmatics,
with phonology and speech intelligibility posing additional communication challenges. Hearing,
nonverbal cognitive level, chronological age, and learning environment account for variation in
the rate of language acquisition observed within the population (Chapman, 1997). Hearing loss
and oral-motor problems have detrimental effects on language acquisition and use (Abbeduto et
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 17
al., 2007). The language phenotype of individuals with Down syndrome is plastic and fluctuates
with age; some language domains, such as productive syntax, improve over time, while others,
such as receptive syntax, tend to decline with age.
Abbueduto (2007) purports that cognitive abilities are prerequisites for linguistic skills.
Considering the relationship between cognition and language development, and the role of oral
language in reading development, literacy skills in individuals with Down syndrome are often
lower than expected based on cognitive ability (Boudreau, 2002). The author, however, found
limited research discussing the relationship between literacy acquisition and oral language skills
in individuals with Down syndrome.
Boudreau (2002) and Kay Raining-Bird, Cleave, and McConnell (2000), found that
expressive and receptive language measures served as key predictors of reading performance in
individuals with Down syndrome. Receptive vocabulary and syntax comprehension served as
predictors of word identification, while reading comprehension correlated with both receptive
and expressive language. Individuals with Down syndrome therefore performed poorly on
reading comprehension and other literacy tasks associated with expressive language.
In summary, the cognitive phenotype of individuals with Down syndrome includes
impairments in executive function, working memory, and language (Silverman, 2007).
Individuals within the population display deficits in executive function including solving
problems, behavioral adaptations, forming concepts, task switching, and planning. Within the
domain of working memory, individuals demonstrate relative strengths in visuo-spatial abilities
and relative weaknesses in verbal abilities. Within the domain of language, individuals
demonstrate relative strengths in receptive language as compared to expressive language.
Individuals with Down syndrome share a cognitive phenotype, though the degree to which
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 18
specific characteristics, such as challenges with executive function, working memory, and
language manifest across the population varies considerably. While the research literature agrees
on the general characteristics that compose the cognitive phenotype of individuals with Down
syndrome, the degree to which the characteristics represent either a qualitative difference or a
delay in development as compared to typically developing individuals is a matter of debate.
Developmental Pathways in Individuals with Down Syndrome: Delay or Difference?
There is a debate in the literature as to whether children with Down syndrome follow
unique developmental pathways or whether they follow the same developmental pathways as
typically developing children at a delayed rate. Natsopoulos, Christou, Koutselini, Rafopoulos,
and Karefillidou (2002) summarize the theoretical debate from the viewpoint of developmental
two-group theorists, developmental liberal approaches, and difference approaches.
Developmental two-group theorists posit children with Down syndrome display unique cognitive
patterns and have a different cognitive structure compared to typically developing children
matched on a cognitive level. Conversely, developmental liberal theorists posit individuals with
Down syndrome develop the structure and integration of cognitive abilities on a track parallel,
although delayed, compared to typically developing children with regard to structure and
integration of abilities. Theorists supporting the difference approach hypothesize individuals
with Down syndrome experience deficits in memory, attention, verbal, logical, and conceptual
abilities that account for quantitative and qualitative differences compared to typically
developing individuals when matched for mental age.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 19
Within the context of the developmental delay versus difference debate, studies reveal a
mixed pattern of results in determining if the cognitive development of children with Down
syndrome follows a unique pathway or if development simply lags behind that of typically
developing children (Schuchardt, Gebhardt, & Maehler, 2010). Although research reveals mixed
results, practitioners in the field of education tend to adopt the developmental delay viewpoint, as
evidenced in both terminology and practice. Individuals with Down syndrome are labeled
mentally retarded or slow learners (Wishart, 1993). Wishart notes that educators essentially teach
skills following the same scope and sequence as appropriate for typically developing children,
although they may break down information into smaller chunks and proceed at a slower pace
when teaching children with Down syndrome.
Methodology for Determining Delay or Difference
Within the literature, there is debate as to the appropriate selection of comparison groups
for special populations as the method used for matching groups can affect the conclusions drawn
from the research. Researchers use different matching techniques to determine if individuals with
a disorder exhibit a developmental delay or a developmental deviance (Thomas, Annaz, Ansari,
Scerif, Jarrold, & Karmiloff-Smith, 2009). Typically, researchers match a group with Down
syndrome to two types of control groups. One type of control group is matched for mental age;
the other type of control group is matched for chronological age. When the group with Down
syndrome performs similarly to the mental age matched group, but exhibits a deficit when
compared to the chronological age matched group, the group with Down syndrome is considered
delayed in development. When the group with Down syndrome exhibits a deficit when compared
to both types of control groups, researchers characterize the deficit as a difference or atypicality.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 20
Wishart (1993) warned about the limits of the cross-sectional designs of studies focused
on the presence or absence of individual skills at specific ages. Wishart voiced concern that the
snap-shot approach employed in cross sectional studies may produce misleading results, and
noted such studies often support the developmental delay theory. Both Thomas et al. (2009) and
Wishart (1993) advocated the use of longitudinal studies and growth models to learn about the
developmental processes of individuals with Down syndrome, and found studies using such
models find learning patterns and developmental pathways of these individuals deviate from
typically developing children.
Delays and Differences in Working Memory
Individuals with Down syndrome demonstrate impairment in working memory, however,
there is a debate in the literature as to whether the impairment reflects a developmental delay or a
unique difference compared to typically developing children (Schuchardt et al., 2010).
Schuchardt, Maehler, and Hasselhorn (2011) found multiple studies that used a chronological
age match and found deficits in working memory that increased with the degree of intellectual
disability, supporting the delay argument. For example, both Henry & MacLean (2002) and Van
der Molen, Van Luit, Jongmans, & Van der Molen (2007) examined memory performance based
Baddeley’s (1986) model of working memory and posited individuals with intellectual
disabilities experience a developmental delay compared to typically developing children.
Pickering and Gathercole (2004) found a developmental lag related to the visuo-spatial
sketchpad component of working memory. Schuchardt et al. (2010) also found evidence of
developmental delay in individuals with intellectual disabilities specific to the executive function
and visuo-spatial subsystems of working memory.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 21
Schudchardt et al. (2011) also identified studies that used mental age comparisons that
supported the structural difference hypothesis. A series of studies found deficits in the
phonological loop component of working memory (Hasselhorn & Maehler, 2007; Henry &
MacLean, 2002; Jarrold, Baddeley, & Hewes, 2000; Schuchardt et al., 2010). While research
concurs individuals with intellectual disabilities underperform compared to their mental age
matched peers on measures related to the phonological loop in working memory, signifying a
structural difference (Jarrold et al. 2000; Henry & MacLean 2002; Rosenquist et al. 2003; van
der Molen et al. 2007), there remains a debate as to whether deficits in all components of the
phonological loop qualify as structural differences, or if some components lag in their
development.
In their study of children with borderline and mild intellectual disabilities, Schuchardt et
al. (2010) found that, while children with borderline intellectual disabilities demonstrated a delay
compared to the control group, children with mild intellectual disabilities demonstrated a
structural difference manifested in the atypical development of the phonological store.
Hasselhorn and Maehler (2007) came to a different conclusion. In a study of ten-year-old
children from two German special schools matching chronological age and mental age,
Hasselhorn and Maehler (2007) examined the size of the phonological store and the automaticity
of the sub vocal rehearsal process. Students from the special schools achieved at a similar level
as their mental age matched peers on measures of the phonological store, indicating a
developmental lag. Results for the measures of sub vocal rehearsal indicate a significant deficit
compared to both chronological and mental age matched groups, suggesting a structural
difference.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 22
Research concurs children with intellectual disabilities demonstrate impairments in
working memory. These deficits are specific to the working memory components of executive
function and the phonological loop. While converging evidence supports a structural difference
specific to some subcomponents of the phonological loop, a debate remains as to which
subcomponent deficits result from a difference and which, result from a delay.
Delays and Differences in Language
Just as deficits in working memory for individuals with Down syndrome result from a
combination of delays and differences, so do deficits in communication (Abbeduto, Warren, &
Conners, 2007). Children with Down syndrome demonstrate patterns of strengths and
weaknesses related to language skills, including strengths in imitation and gesture and
weaknesses in articulation, expressive language, and phonological short-term memory. Symbolic
intentional communication occurs in typically developing children between 12 and 18 months,
but occurs in children with Down syndrome between 24 and 36 months, indicating a delay in
language acquisition (Rondal & Buckley, 2003).
Joint attention describes an infant’s ability to coordinate attention between another
individual and an object (Adamson & Chance, 1998). Joint attention is integrated with language
acquisition, and expands development from objects to include symbols. Infants with
developmental disorders, such as Down syndrome, experience challenges in effectuating joint
attention, as the disorder interrupts the relation between joint attention and language. With low
levels of sustained joint attention, infants and toddlers may experience reduced opportunities to
interact socially and develop language (Abbeduto, Warren, & Conners, 2007).

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 23
Adamson, Bakeman, Deckner, and Romski (2009) found variations between toddlers
with Down syndrome, toddlers with autism, and typically developing toddlers with regard to the
developmental path of symbolic joint engagement. By age two, toddlers with Down syndrome
did not use symbols in joint engagement, and neither did typically developing toddlers with late
language acquisition, indicating a base level of vocabulary is required for children to infuse
symbols into joint engagement. The authors also found the frequency of symbol infusion
supported joint engagement and predicted receptive an expressive vocabulary growth in all
groups. For children with Down syndrome, challenges acquiring language and infrequent use of
symbols may limit joint engagement to concrete events.
Children with Down syndrome demonstrate a delay in speaking their first words
compared to typically developing children (Abbeduto, Warren, & Conners, 2007). Delays in
vocabulary development reflect delays in cognitive development for this population as children
with Down syndrome speak their first words at the same mental age as typically developing
children. Expressive vocabulary delays persist through adolescence. Abbeduto et al. (2007) note
a dearth in the research examining the process individuals with Down syndrome use for learning
vocabulary and the extent to which a difference in vocabulary learning exists compared to
typically developing peers.
In other aspects of language, such as syntax and pragmatics, children with Down
syndrome demonstrate delays when compared to typically developing children (Chapman, 2003).
Expressive syntax is impaired to a greater extent than receptive syntax within the population
(Abbeduto, Pavetto, & Kesin, 2001; Eadie, Fey, & Douglas, 2002). While children with Down
syndrome use social language in similar ways to typically developing children, they develop
these skills at a slower rate (Abbeduto et al., 2007).
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 24
Delays and Differences in Social Cognition, Problem Solving, and Error Patterns
Many aspects of the early development of social cognition in individuals with Down
syndrome appear to occur in a similar sequence, though at a delayed rate, compared to typically
developing peers (Cebula, Moore, & Wishart, 2010). The authors, however, found differences in
goal-directed behavior and persistence. Additionally, neuroscience has identified structural and
processing differences in the temporal limbic system, which handles emotion (Aylward, Li,
Honeycutt, Warren, Pulsifier, & Barta, 1999). These differences may influence later socio-
cognitive development specific to emotion recognition and empathy (Cebula, Moore, & Wishart,
2010).
Wishart (1993) reviewed three longitudinal studies that examined how children with
Down syndrome performed on operant learning tasks, object concept development tasks, and
intelligence tests at different ages. Across all three studies, Wishart observed that individuals
with Down syndrome demonstrated qualitative differences compared to typically developing
peers. Children with Down syndrome avoided learning opportunities, adopted counterproductive
strategies, demonstrated instability in maintaining newly acquired skills over a period of time,
and failed to consolidate skills.
In a study comparing error patterns of individuals with Down syndrome, individuals with
moderate learning disabilities, and typically developing children, Gunn and Jarrold (2004) found
individuals with Down syndrome exhibited different patterns of errors compared to the other two
groups. The study examined the performance of subjects on a visuo-spatial pattern completion
task, the Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1990).
Individuals with Down syndrome made more individuation errors compared to typically
developing children and individuals with moderate learning disabilities (Gunn & Jarrold, 2004).
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 25
Individuation errors occur when the subject provides half of the correct pattern, but fails to
combine all features of the target pattern accurately. The group with Down syndrome made
fewer repetition of a figure errors than the other two groups, which involve reproduction of a
portion of the pattern located above or beside the blank. Difference errors occur when the subject
chooses an unrelated item to complete a pattern. The group with Down syndrome made a greater
number of difference errors than the comparison groups.
In summary, the literature is inconclusive in determining whether children with Down
syndrome follow unique developmental pathways or whether they follow the same
developmental pathways as typically developing children at a delayed rate. Performance
compared to both chronological age matched groups and mental age matched groups help
researchers determine if individuals with Down syndrome exhibit developmental delays or
developmental differences in specific domains. Within the domain of working memory, the
phonological loop appears to demonstrate impairments that are structurally different from the
typically developing population, although the exact subcomponent that accounts for the
difference is a matter of debate. Researchers attribute various impairments in language and social
cognition to a mixture of developmental differences or developmental delays, depending on the
skill. Finally, problem solving and error patterns appear to support the hypothesis that
individuals with Down syndrome exhibit characteristics quantitatively and qualitatively different
than that of the typically developing population. The delays and differences experienced by
individuals with Down syndrome across specific skill domains have significant implications for
development and instruction as these individuals acquire literacy skills.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 26
Literacy Development and Instruction
There is some debate in the literature about the natural developmental pathway of literacy
skills in children with Down syndrome and the best strategies for teaching the population.
While the research community has increased the incidence of study of reading in individuals
with Down syndrome, conflicting findings, limited scope of skills studied (Browder, Wakeman,
Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Algozzine, 2006) and small sample sizes pose challenges to
educators attempting to transfer of research findings into classroom practice (Al Otaiba & Hosp,
2004; Allor et al., 2010; Buckley, 2001).
Profile of Reading Achievement in Individuals with Down Syndrome
The degree to which individuals with Down syndrome achieve literacy skills is a matter
of debate. Both limited research and limited opportunities for learning to read contribute to the
disagreement over appropriate expectations for reading achievement levels in children with
Down syndrome (Turner & Alborz, 2003). Macpherson (1999) posited that only five percent of
children with Down syndrome learn to read and Katims (2001) found only one in five children
with Down syndrome achieved basic literacy skills. Other studies have challenged these findings.
Goetz, Hulme, Brogstocke, Caroll, Nasir, & Snowling (2008) purport most individuals
with Down syndrome attain literacy skills, however, the degree of achievement in reading varies
across the population. In a study of 66 middle and high school aged students with Down
syndrome, Bochner & Pietrese (1996) found 86% of parents surveyed reported that their child
could read, although the degree to which they could read and level of text complexity varied
significantly across the population. Rynders, Abery, Spiker, Olive, Sheran, & Zajac (1997)
concluded that word recognition and comprehension scores continued to increase for individuals
with Down syndrome into young adulthood, and found that many individuals in their study were
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 27
able to participate in functional reading activities. In a study of upper elementary and middle
grade students receiving reading tutoring, 20 out of 22 scored as readers on a word identification
test (Laws, Byrne, & Buckley, 2000). Sheppardson (1994) and Buckley, Bird, and Byrne (1996)
caution against interpreting findings in reading achievement for children with Down syndrome as
upper ability limits, noting that many participants in early studies were not afforded the
opportunity of reading instruction.
Limits in Learning Opportunities for Individuals with Down Syndrome
Early assumptions about limited literacy achievement on the part of educators and other
professionals have contributed to the dearth of research on the reading abilities of children with
Down syndrome. According to Buckley (2001), until individuals with Down syndrome
participate in high-quality and extended reading instruction, appropriate expectations regarding
levels of functional literacy and ranges of literacy achievement for the population will remain
unclear. Wishart (1993) notes that while children with Down syndrome may exhibit poorer
response rates to instruction and intervention than their typically developing peers, inappropriate
or poorly timed interventions may account for deficits in achievement. While genetics accounts
for variance in performance across academic domains, so does environment and learning
opportunities (Petrill & Justice, 2007).
Early and persistent interventions facilitate cognitive development in children with Down
syndrome (Couzens, Haynes, & Cuskelly, 2012). As individuals with Down syndrome
demonstrate regressions in skills and impairments in some areas of functioning, interventions
should include frequent reviews of skills with regular progress monitoring (Fidler & Nadel,
2007). Educators are beginning to increase opportunities for individuals with Down syndrome to
participate in quality reading instruction based on the assumption that individuals with Down
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 28
syndrome can learn to read and write at a level that will enable participation in educational
settings, employment opportunities, and leisure activities (Buckley, 2001). Individuals with
Down syndrome educated in inclusive settings demonstrate higher levels of literacy compared to
peers of similar ability educated in special education classrooms (Bochner, Outhre, & Pieterse,
2001; Buckley, Bird, Sacks, & Archer, 2006; Casey, Jonse, Kugler, & Watkins, 1998).
Literacy Skill Development in Individuals with Down Syndrome
Buckley (2001) concluded that reading ability serves as a strength for individuals with
Down syndrome, noting that individuals in the population exceed expectations in reading
compared to predicted achievement levels based on language skills or mental age. Boudreau
(2002) also noted that strengths in specific areas of literacy development, like word identification,
suggest strengths in literacy compared to IQ. Cardoso-Martins, Olson, & Pennington (2009),
however, disagree with characterizing reading ability in individuals with Down syndrome as a
strength, since these advantages do not typically extend beyond basic reading skills.
The literature concurs that individuals with Down syndrome exhibit word identification
skills superior to word attack skills and the ability to comprehend text (Boudreau, 2002; Goetz et
al. 2008; Cupples & Iacono, 2000), and that the gap between comprehension skills widens over
time as decoding skills ameliorate (Kay-Raining Bird et al., 2000). Beyond general cognitive
ability, verbal and visual short-term memory account for variation in reading achievement for
individuals with Down syndrome (Fowler, Dohert, & Boynton, 1995; Kay Raining-Bird et al.
2000). Abbeduto, Warren, & Conners (2007) note that other emergent literacy skills, such as
print concepts, in children with Down syndrome emerge parallel to developmental expectations
for children matched for nonverbal ability or vocabulary age.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 29
Individuals with Down syndrome experience challenges in phonological awareness
(Boudreau, 2002) that have led some researchers (Cossu, Rossini, & Marshall, 1993) to imply
that individuals with Down syndrome follow a different path of literacy development, one that
develops in absence of phonological awareness. Other studies found that phonological awareness
does indeed predict and account for variance in reading ability beyond general cognitive ability
in children with Down syndrome (Cupples & Iacono 2000; Fowler et al., 1995; Kay Raining-
Bird et al. 2000). While a debate in the literature ensues about whether children with Down
syndrome experience a delay or a difference in the development of literacy skills, the research
concurs that teaching reading benefits the population (Buckley, 2001).
The Debate over Sight Word Based versus Phonics Based Instructional Interventions
Literacy instruction for individuals with Down syndrome to date has focused
predominately on a sight word approach (Allor, Mathes, Roberts, Cheatham, & Champlin, 2010;
Cardoso-Martins et al., 2009; Cologon, Cuppes, & Wyver, 2011; Goetz et al., 2008). While
reading instruction for typically developing children tends to emphasize phonics and word attack
skills, a considerable amount of literature supports a sight word approach, where children learn
to recognize and name words as wholes, for children with Down syndrome (Buckley, 1985;
Byrne, Buckley, MacDonald, & Bird, 1995; Fidler, Most, & Guidberson, 2005). Buckley (1985)
originally purported that children with Down syndrome were logographic readers, relying on
visual skills to read whole words without using letter-sound relationships. Buckley further
supported this assertion by noting that some nonverbal children with Down syndrome could
learn to read.
While a sight word reading approach supports the strength of the visuo-spatial sketchpad
in short term memory of individuals with Down syndrome, the approach has limits. Sight word
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 30
reading approaches do not prepare readers to encounter untrained words; therefore, the approach
impedes the ability of children to become independent readers (Goetz et al., 2008). In 1996,
Buckley et al. updated Buckley’s (1985) argument to posit that children with Down syndrome do
use phonological reading strategies, but at a delayed rate as compared to typically developing
peers. Additionally, the authors argue that children with Down syndrome will only progress to
phonological reading strategies after acquiring a base sight word vocabulary. Regardless of the
debate in the literature, when examining actual instructional practice for children with Down
syndrome, Katims (2000) found a concerted focus on memorization of word lists.
Word analysis or phonics approaches provide an alternative to sight word instruction
(Goetz et al., 2008). Several studies have demonstrated that older children and adults with Down
syndrome do indeed process letter-sound relationships when reading words, similar to typically
developing readers (Cardoso-Martins & Frith, 2001; Cardoso- Martins, Michalick, & Pollo,
2002; Fowler et al., 1995; Gombert, 2002; Snowling et al., 2002). Phonological awareness
correlates with word reading ability in individuals with Down syndrome (Cardoso-Martins et al.,
2009). The authors advocate that, similar to typically developing children, individuals with
Down syndrome rely on phonological skills. Abbeduto et al. (2007) concur, noting that both
phonological awareness and memory correlate with reading measures for the population, and that
individuals with Down syndrome use phonological processes to read words.
Cologon et al. (2011) note that while Buckley et al. (1996) claimed that a foundation of
sight word vocabulary was necessary prior to acquiring phonics, research has yet to actually
determine if children with Down syndrome benefit from an earlier introduction of word analysis
skills. The authors also assert the need to gather more information about the exact relationship
between phonological awareness and reading in children with Down syndrome. Allor et al.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 31
(2010) also note the need for more research to determine if word attack strategies transfer when
reading novel words. Kennedy and Flynn (2003) found that training in phonological awareness
improved skills, however, the skills did not generalize to novel phonological tasks.
Evidence supporting sight word based approaches. Buckley (2001) supports
logographic reading approaches, where children remember whole word by visual pattern and
individuals memorize lists of sight words. Once children build a store of sight words, they can
use the words as examples to understand phonetic patterns. According to Buckley, rapid
recognition of sight words will improve reading progress in children with Down syndrome.
Goetz et al. (2008) note that weaknesses in auditory memory skills may make word
attack inefficient in individuals with Down syndrome. Although disputed, Cossu et al. (1993)
proposed that children with Down syndrome may not require phonological awareness to learn to
read and learn to read by a whole word approach exclusively.
In a review of 128 studies focused on teaching reading to individuals with significant
cognitive disabilities, Browder et al. (2006), found strong evidence to support sight word
instruction that used prompting and fading procedures. The authors noted that the ability to read
sight words supports daily living and functioning in individuals with significant cognitive
disabilities. The authors indicated, however, that sight word instruction, while necessary, was not
sufficient in ensuring individuals with disabilities reach their literacy potential.
Evidence supporting phonics based approaches. Although sight word instruction does
appear to help individuals with Down syndrome learn to read specifically taught words, the
approach limits that ability for such individuals to become independent readers who are able to
read novel words, read fluently, and comprehend text (Lemons & Fuchs, 2010). A trend in more
recent literature supports training in phonological awareness and phonics for individuals with
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 32
Down syndrome. While individuals with Down syndrome experience deficits in phonological
awareness, the degree to which those deficits relate to the cognitive phenotype of Down
syndrome or the lack of effective instruction is a matter of debate (Cologon et al., 2011).
Snowling, Nash, & Henderson (2008) noted that direct instruction of phonological awareness
skills is required for children with Down syndrome to use the skills while decoding. Determining
the relevance of phonics-based interventions for individuals with Down syndrome therefore
requires the participation population in the intervention and an analysis of the efficacy of the
interventions.
Studies by Conners (1992) and Hoogeveen, Kouwenhoven, and Smeets (1989) found
word analysis instruction appropriate for individuals with Down syndrome, as individuals in both
studies learned to sound out words using phonics skills. Kennedy and Flynn (2003) found
positive results for improved phonological awareness skills of children with Down syndrome,
and that the results related to improvements in spelling and decoding. The authors do suggest
some deviation from typically developing children, as the children with Down syndrome did not
acquire rhyme awareness prior to more complex phonological awareness skills, such as
phonemic awareness. The authors recommend teaching phonological awareness at the phoneme
level for the population. Browder et al. (2008) extended these findings by applying the research
to nonverbal students with Down syndrome. Nonverbal students participated in a specially
designed curriculum intervention and demonstrated improvements on a nonverbal measure of
phonological awareness.
In their study of 15 children with Down syndrome, Goetz et al. (2008) examined the
efficacy of a structured, phonics based intervention program focused on phoneme segmentation
and blending within the context of letter sound relationships and reading words in context.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 33
Results demonstrated that individuals in the study benefitted from the intervention, and that
growth was maintained five months after the termination of the intervention. Cardoso-Martins et
al., (2009) also casted doubt that individuals with Down syndrome learn to read visually in
absence of attention to phonics. The authors found that the participants with Down syndrome in
their study experienced more success reading words with regular sound spelling correspondences
than irregular words, indicating they used phonics skills when reading novel words.
In a longitudinal study, Allor et al. (2010) found that individuals with intellectual
disabilities could learn phonemic awareness and phonics skills and apply those skills to decode
novel words, although performance varied across individuals. While the study demonstrated that
students with intellectual disabilities could make gains in phonological awareness and phonics
skills, the authors conceded that improvements might take several years to manifest.
Lemon and Fuchs (2010) studied the response of 24 children with Down syndrome to an
explicit phonics program that incorporated instruction in letters, letter combinations, decodable
words, sight words, and a story. Of the participants, 16 out of 24 showed growth in decodable
word reading. Results suggested that while children with Down syndrome learn at a delayed rate
compared to their typically developing peers, they do not appear to follow a different
developmental pathway for reading. The authors recommended intensive reading instruction for
children with Down syndrome that address phonological awareness, sound spelling
correspondences, and decoding. In a study with a small sample size, Cologon et al. (2011) found
that instruction in phonics not only improved reading skills and phonological awareness in
children with Down syndrome, but also allowed the participants to generalize reading skills to
novel words.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 34
A summary of the debate between sight word and phonics based approaches. The
position that children with Down syndrome are primarily logographic readers requiring a sight
word approach to instruction appears incongruent with current literature. A significant and
growing body of research supports explicit instruction in phonological awareness and phonics to
support the literacy development of children with Down syndrome. While the majority of
classroom instruction to date has focused on a sight word approach, incorporating a phonological
and phonics based instructional approach allows the opportunity for individuals with Down
syndrome to read novel words and develop independent reading skills. Abbeduto et al. (2007)
posit that children with Down syndrome benefit from both sight word and word analysis
instruction, but that word analysis allows for more generalizable skills. The authors therefore
suggested a combined approach with an early emphasis on whole word reading followed by an
increased emphasis on phonological awareness and phonics.
Intensive, Comprehensive Instructional Approaches
The majority of the literature specific to literacy interventions for children with Down
syndrome focuses on either sight word or phonics based approaches. Few studies examine the
effectiveness of comprehensive reading interventions for the population. While limited, results
from existing studies suggest explicit, comprehensive, and extended reading instruction that
includes intense amounts of repetition and practice is required to produce meaningful gains for
children with intellectual disabilities; however, providing this type of instruction in the
traditional school setting proves challenging.
Al Otaiba and Hosp (2004) examined the efficacy of a tutoring program for four students
with Down syndrome and confirmed that the scientifically based reading instruction approaches
outlined by the National Reading Panel (2000) are effective for children with Down syndrome.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 35
In a longitudinal study examining the reading achievement of individuals with mild to moderate
intellectual disabilities, Allor et al. (2010) found scientifically based reading instruction
recommended for typically developing children was also effective for children with intellectual
disabilities. The intervention was intense, comprehensive, included multiple dimensions of
reading, and implemented over an extended period of time with fidelity. Participants
demonstrated improvements across multiple domains of basic reading skills. The authors did find
differences between the students with intellectual disabilities as compared to typical students
with reading disabilities, namely in the amount of time and intensive instruction required to meet
basic first grade benchmarks as well as challenges with the transfer of skills to novel situations.
Instructional design. The research literature points to a set of instructional practices that
improves outcomes for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Caffrey and Fuchs (2007) found
that students with intellectual disabilities demonstrated favorable responses when provided with
constant time delay, direct instruction, and specific strategy instruction. The instructional design
of the Allor et al. (2010) study aligned to the principles of direct instruction and used a
behavioral approach with frequent reinforcement, appropriate wait time, prompts, and extended
opportunities for practice. The findings of Allor, Champlin, Gifford, & Mathes (2010) also
supported an intensive, direct instructional approach for individuals with intellectual disabilities.
The authors proposed the use of repetitive instructional routines and language, a rapid pace of
instruction, and appropriate motivational techniques. Extended practice designed to target the
ability level of the student produced positive results in reading. Teachers within the study
considered the level of intensity, appropriate level of difficulty, motivational factors, and
relevance of the content to the student when planning instruction.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 36
Instruction to Support Comprehension
As most studies of literacy development in individuals with Down syndrome are limited
to early reading skills, there is limited research addressing reading comprehension in individuals
with intellectual disabilities (Abbeduto et al., 2007; Browder et al., 2006; Morgan, Moni, &
Jobling, 2004). For many individuals with Down syndrome, reading comprehension is a
challenge (Buckley, 2001; Morgan et al., 2004). As learning for individuals with Down
syndrome continues into adolescence and adulthood, middle and high school serve as a window
of opportunity for learning to comprehend text. Boudreau (2002), however, notes that the focus
of many instructional programs changes from academic to life skills or vocational training in
middle and high school. Access to quality instruction focused on understanding the meaning of
text may improve reading comprehension for individuals with intellectual disabilities.
The research literature on interventions to improve reading comprehension in individuals
with Down syndrome is also limited. Moni and Jobling (2001) found that explicit comprehension
strategy instruction applied to meaningful text helped young adults improve overall reading
comprehension. Allor et al. (2010) found that while participants made growth in oral vocabulary
and listening comprehension over the first two years of their study, the authors observed little
growth in reading comprehension, with abstract concepts and inferencing proving areas of
specific challenge for individuals with Down syndrome.
For individuals with Down syndrome, reading comprehension lags behind accuracy by
two to three years (Nash & Heath, 2011). The authors recommend selecting reading materials
appropriate for the instructional purpose, accuracy or comprehension. The authors also found a
relationship between reading comprehension and language skills in Down syndrome, which was
a similar finding for chronologically age matched controls. This finding led the authors to
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 37
recommend interventions focused on building oral language to remedy comprehension
difficulties.
In summary, the delay versus difference debate related to development in individuals
with Down syndrome manifests in the literature related to literacy development for the
population. Most of the research specific to literacy instruction for individuals with Down
syndrome has focused on sight word and phonics based approaches, with little attention paid to
the development of, or effective instructional strategies for, reading comprehension. While
educators continue to focus primarily on sight word approaches, new directions in literature
evidencing the efficacy of phonics based, blended, and more comprehensive approaches provide
emerging evidence for broadening the scope of literacy skills taught to children with Down
syndrome. No matter the approach taken, individuals with Down syndrome require extensive
time and support to acquire literacy skills compared to typically developing peers. Providing
instruction of sufficient intensity in a school setting alone proves challenging; therefore, the
home setting provides and additional venue for the continual development of literacy skills.
The Home Literacy Environment
Within the context of their home literacy environment, children acquire early language
and literacy skills that serve as preparation for their reading and writing experiences in school
(Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). The home literacy environment is a multifaceted construct which
includes shared storybook reading, parent and child interactions during reading, literacy interests
and activities of the family, availability of reading and writing materials, parental attitudes and
beliefs about the influence of literacy exposure, and parental expectations for their child’s
literacy achievement (van der Schuit, Peeters, Segers, van Balkom, & Verhoeven, 2009).
Researchers concur that reading with and talking to children builds fundamental language and
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 38
literacy skills (Al Otaiba, Lewis, Whalon, Dyrlund, & McKenzie, 2009; Arnold, Lonigan,
Whitehurst, & Epstein, 1994; Senechal, LeFevre, Thomas, & Daley, 1998). Parent beliefs,
expectations, and goals for their children’s literacy achievement affect their practices and the
home literacy environment (Debaryshe, 1995; Senechal & LeFevre, 2002). Different parent
practices, such as shared reading or direct teaching of early literacy skills, influence the
developmental pathways children take as they acquire oral language and cultivate literacy skills
(Senechal & LeFevre, 2002).
Although home literacy experiences, including parent–child book reading, account for a
significant amount of children’s later reading achievement, the research on the home literacy
environments and experiences of children with cognitive disabilities is limited. Several studies
provided some insight into the home literacy environments, beliefs, goals, expectations, and
practices of parents of children with intellectual disabilities using survey data (Al Otaiba et al.,
2009; Marvin, 1994; Marvin & Miranda, 1993; Trenholm & Mirenda, 2006; van der Schuit et al.,
2009; Weikle & Hadadian, 2004). Results from the majority of these studies indicate that the
home literacy environment of children with intellectual disabilities differs from the home literacy
environment of typically developing children with regard to family literacy experiences.
Family Influences on the Literacy Development of Typically Developing Children
Dearing, Simpkins, and Weiss (2006)
examined the relationship between family
involvement in school and elementary aged children’s literacy performance in a longitudinal
study of 281 low-income families. The authors found that increased family involvement in
school predicted increased literacy outcomes for children. While the authors did note an
achievement gap based on maternal education level in cases of low family involvement in school,
the gap dissipated when comparing maternal education levels in families with high levels of
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 39
school involvement. The study reinforced the importance of parental involvement in a school
environment, but parents also play a role in developing academic skills, including literacy and
language, within the context of the home environment.
The development of robust emergent literacy skills, specifically oral language,
phonological awareness, and print knowledge, begins in infancy and expands throughout early
childhood as children are exposed to language, print, and instruction. (Phillips & Lonigan, 2009;
Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). In order to support the development of early literacy skills,
multiple studies recommend parents read aloud to their children from an early age to facilitate
future literacy acquisition in the school context (Anderson, Heibert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985;
Hood, Conlon, Andrews, 2008; Phillips & Lonigan, 2009; Umek, Podlesek, & Fekonja, 2005). A
growing body of research is thus focused on determining exactly how parent-child interactions,
book reading, and other home literacy activities influence later reading development (Hood,
Conlon, & Andrews, 2008).
While existing research on the home literacy environments of typically developing
children demonstrates variance in the degree to which shared reading impacts emergent literacy
outcomes, the literature concurs that shared reading correlates with early reading outcomes;
specifically, growth in oral language and vocabulary (Bus, van IJzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995;
Payne, Whitehurst, & Angell, 1994; Phillips & Lonigan, 2009; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002;
Whitehurst et al., 1994). Beyond language skills and emergent literacy skills, there is evidence
that parent-child book reading also impacts overall reading achievement. For example, Bus et al.
(1995) found effect sizes of d=.67 for the frequency of parent-child book reading and language
skills, d=.58 for parent-child book reading and emergent literacy, and d=.55 for overall reading
achievement.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 40
Parent encouragement of child participation and parent facilitation of expressive
vocabulary development during shared book reading positively impacts children’s oral language
skills (Phillips & Lonigan, 2009). Across children from diverse socioeconomic status groups,
children’s active participation in shared reading paired with parents’ elaborative feedback during
reading interactions resulted in children learning more words (Paratore, Cassano, & Schickedanz,
2011; Whitehurst et al., 1994). Senechal (1997) found that children of parents who engaged in
repeated readings and questioning during shared reading learned more words than those who
engaged in single readings of text or readings without questioning. Parents tended to engage their
children in more discussions when reading expository text as compared to narrative text (Price,
van Kleek, & Huberty, 2009). While shared reading had positive effects on children’s vocabulary
and language growth, repeated and interactive readings intensify results. Despite consensus in
the literature regarding effective parent-child book reading practice, parents vary in the methods
they use during shared reading and therefore benefit from instructional intervention promoting
techniques for interactive book reading (Paratore, Cassano, & Schickedanz, 2011).
Influence of parent beliefs on home literacy practices. Parents’ beliefs about the
importance of early experiences with text and parents’ role in facilitating the literacy
development of their children influence home literacy practices. DeBaryshe (1995) found that
parents who believed in the importance of early exposure to books provided higher quality
language experiences than parents who did not believe in the importance of early exposure to
books. In addition to beliefs about book exposure, several studies noted differences across
parents in beliefs about their role in teaching reading to their preschool children (Debaryshe,
1995; Stipeck, Milburn, Clements, & Daniels, 1992; Senechal & LeFevre, 2002).

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 41
Phillips and Lonigan (2009) proposed that there is a reciprocal relationship between
parent’s literacy practices and the skill development of their children. The authors hypothesized
that parents who identify skill deficits in emerging literacy skills, such as letter identification,
may facilitate skill-based activities with their children. Parents of children demonstrating more
advanced literacy skills may demonstrate more on the development of comprehension at the
exclusion of basic early literacy skills. Umek, Podlesek, and Fekonja (2005) also noted a
bidirectional relationship between parents and children concerning literacy practices. The authors
found children’s interests and responses relate to maternal language and literacy activity choices.
The literature thus suggests evidence of interdependence between the behaviors and beliefs of
parents and children.
Influence of oral language on literacy development. The research concurs oral
language ability predicts reading comprehension. In their longitudinal study of 626 preschoolers,
Storch and Whitehurst (2002) found preschool oral language accounted for seven percent of
variance in reading comprehension by grades three and four. In a longitudinal study of 1,137
children, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2005), concurred that
early, comprehensive acquisition of language impacts later language skills and code learning,
and noted the importance of examining the environments in which adults prepare young children
for literacy and language development.
Paratore, Cassano, and Schickedanz (2011) found the quantity of adult talk children hear
predicted their vocabulary size, and the intricacy of the adult syntax predicted both vocabulary
size and syntax level of the child. Quantity and complexity of parental vocabulary predicted 50%
of variance in children’s second grade vocabulary. The authors established that adult talk focused
on clarification, elaboration, higher order questioning, and reasoning impacted children’s
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 42
vocabulary development and comprehension. Biemiller (2005) suggested some parents may
require interventions to increase their use of effective types of linguistic interactions, thus
improving the quantity and quality of language use.
Early pathways to literacy development. Early pathways to literacy occur through both
code related skills and language based skills (NICHD, 2005; Senechal & LeFevre, 2002; Storch
& Whitehurst, 2002). Code related skills predicted early reading in first and second grade, while
oral language skills predicted reading comprehension in third and fourth grade. Understanding
the family literacy practices that support code related skills and oral language skills is therefore
of interest when examining pathways to literacy.
In a five year longitudinal study of 168 children, Senechal and LeFevre (2002) found that
experiences with books related to vocabulary development and listening comprehension, which
in turn correlated with third grade reading ability. The authors discovered that parent instruction
in reading and writing words correlated with early literacy skill development, and that early
literacy skills predicted end of first grade word reading. Due to the fact that exposure alone to
books did not predict emergent literacy skills, the authors suggest acquisition of such skills may
require direct instruction from an adult. By the third grade, both language and emergent literacy
skills demonstrated relevance to reading.
Hood, Conlon, and Andrews (2008) expanded the work of Senechal and LeFevre (2002)
in a three-year longitudinal study of 143 children. Congruent with Senechal and LeFevre’s
findings, Hood et al. (2008) found that parent-child book reading influenced receptive
vocabulary, while parental teaching influenced letter and word identification. The authors
confirmed that acquisition of emergent literacy skills required parental teaching.
Recommendations of the study included training parents to engage in formal literacy teaching
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 43
and interactive strategies while reading with children.
Home Literacy Experiences of Children with Intellectual Disabilities
Although home literacy experiences, including parent–child book reading and parental
beliefs about reading, account for a significant amount of children’s later reading achievement,
the research on home literacy environments and experiences of children with cognitive
disabilities is limited. Both the number of literacy materials in the home and children’s
engagement with the materials influence what children know about books (van der Schuit,
Peeters, Segers, van Balkom, & Verhoeven, 2009). For children both with and without
disabilities, the home literacy environment contributes to language and early literacy
development. Several surveys provide insight into parents’ literacy practices, goals, and
expectations for their children with intellectual disabilities.
Literacy practices of parents of children with intellectual disabilities. Several studies
indicate that the home literacy environments of children with intellectual disabilities are different
from the home literacy environments of typically developing children (Weikle & Hadadian,
2004; Marvin, 1994; Marvin & Miranda, 1993; Trenholm & Mirenda, 2006; van der Schuit et al.,
2009). Children with intellectual disabilities are not read to as frequently and have access to
fewer literacy materials compared to typically developing children (Marvin, 1994; Trenholm &
Mirenda, 2006). Through survey data, Marvin and Miranda identified four differences between
parents of preschool children with disabilities compared to parents of typically developing
preschoolers. The parents of preschoolers with disabilities reported literacy as a lower priority,
provided more limited literacy experiences, expressed diminished expectations for their
children’s progress, and reported lower expectations for their children’s future achievement.
Parent behaviors during parent-child book reading differed as well, as parents of children with
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 44
intellectual disabilities tended to focus on pointing to and labeling pictures over higher order
questioning (Trenholm & Mirenda, 2006).
Van der Schuit et al. (2009) used a parent questionnaire to examine differences in the
home literacy environments of 48 children with intellectual disabilities, 107 chronologically age
matched children without disabilities, and 36 mental age matched children without disabilities.
The authors found differences in the home literacy environments of the children with intellectual
disabilities compared to both their chronologically aged matched and mental age matched peers.
While differences between children with intellectual disabilities permeated almost all aspects of
the home literacy environment when compared to the group of chronologically age matched
children, the authors identified differences specific to child-initiated activities only when
compared with the mental age matched group. The cognitive disability accounted for the
variance in the home literacy environment in the comparison between children with and without
intellectual disabilities.
Consistent with findings from Marvin and Mirenda (1993), van der Schuit et al. (2009)
found children with intellectual disabilities engaged in fewer reading, writing, and drawing
experiences than their chronologically age matched peers. When compared to typically
developing peers, children with intellectual disabilities demonstrated diminished interest in
storybook reading activities and withdrew from story, picture, and word orientation activities.
Parents of children with intellectual disabilities provided a lower volume of literacy materials
and engaged in different types of literacy activities than did parents of typically developing
children.
Trenholm and Mirenda (2006) collected data about home literacy beliefs and practices
from 224 parents and guardians of children with Down syndrome. In terms of practices, the
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 45
majority of participants reported reading aloud to their children and pointing to and labeling
pictures while doing so. Fewer than 30% reported asking higher order questions related to the
reading. When asked to select potential interventions to support literacy development in their
children, 65.1% of participants responded that they would benefit from parent training in reading
or writing. The authors recommended implementing instructional interventions focused on
higher order questioning techniques during parent-child book reading interactions to improve
literacy outcomes for children with Down syndrome.
In their online survey of 107 families of children with cognitive disabilities, Al Otaiba, et
al. (2009) collected evidence about family literacy practices. The sample differed from previous
studies of the families of children with intellectual disabilities in that the parents achieved higher
levels of education. The respondents reported providing exposure to print rich environments,
reading books and using instructional materials with more frequency than previous studies
reported. A substantial number of participants, 80%, owned more than 50 children’s books and
reported reading with their children and engaging in literacy activities for ten to 30 minutes per
day. Parents in the study noted that their children reached literacy milestones similar to typically
developing children.
Influence of parent beliefs on home literacy practices for children with intellectual
disabilities. Home literacy surveys conducted with parents of children with disabilities provide
some insight into the goals, expectations, and beliefs about literacy parents hold for their children.
In the Trenholm and Mirenda (2006) study, 56.3% of parents of five to nine year olds with Down
syndrome and 62.1% of nine to 13 year olds with Down syndrome prioritized learning to read as
one of the top three goals they held for their children. As the age of the children increased,
however, the number of parents rating literacy as a top priority diminished. The authors noted a
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 46
concurrent finding that the 55.8% of survey participants indicated ages six to 12 serve as the
optimum age range for children with Down syndrome to acquire literacy skills. The authors
expressed concern that this misconception about the optimum age range for literacy development
in children with Down syndrome may prevent parents from intervening early in a child’s life to
provide literacy support. The limited age range identified by participants as optimum for literacy
development in individuals with Down syndrome may abate focus on literacy development in
adolescence, despite the data suggesting adolescence may be an optimum window of opportunity
for individuals with Down syndrome to acquire literacy skills (Boudreau, 2002, Fowler et al.,
1995, Moni & Jobling 2000).
Al Otaiba et al. (2009) noted that while more than 75% of participants reported alphabet
recognition as a top goal, parents also ranked reading for meaning, functional literacy, and
reading for pleasure as goals for their children. These findings dispute previous research by
Marvin (1994) and Marvin and Miranda, (1993), who noted that parents did not rank these
aspects of literacy as critical aspects of their children’s literacy development.
While parents in both the Trenholm and Mirenda study (2006) and the Al Otaiba et al.
study (2009) identified learning to read and write as a priority for their children, van der Schuit et
al.’s (2009) survey indicated parents demonstrate confusion regarding appropriate expectations
for their children’s future reading and writing levels. Parental lack of clarity about appropriate
expectations for literacy attainment may impact parent child literacy practices. In a related
finding, van der Schuit et al. (2009) found the only aspect of the survey in which children with
intellectual disabilities scored higher than typically developing children was the pace with which
they turned the pages and progressed through the story. Children with intellectual disabilities
used these behaviors to control the book reading sessions and the authors purport that a lack of
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 47
clarity of parental expectations of the child’s literacy abilities causes them to allow the child to
set the pace of the session.
The home literacy environment, including parent-child book reading, impacts language
and literacy development in both typically developing children and children with disabilities.
When compared with the home literacy environment of typically developing children, the home
literacy environment of children with intellectual disabilities differs. The beliefs of parents about
reading and literacy development in their children impacts the practices of parents and the home
literacy environment of both typically developing children and children with disabilities. While
parent-child book reading serves as an effective method for developing language and literacy in
both populations, structured instruction and interactive reading strategies provide promise for
maximizing learning during family literacy activities.
In summary, children acquire early language and literacy skills that serve as preparation
for their reading and writing experiences in school within the context of their home literacy
environment (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). While reading with and talking to children develops
language and literacy skills (Al Otaiba, Lewis, Whalon, Dyrlund, & McKenzie, 2009; Arnold,
Lonigan, Whitehurst, & Epstein, 1994; Senechal, LeFevre, Thomas, & Daley, 1998), parent
beliefs, expectations, and goals for their children’s literacy achievement play a role and affect the
home literacy experience (Debaryshe, 1995; Senechal & LeFevre, 2002). While research on the
home literacy environments and experiences of children with cognitive disabilities is limited,
several existing studies suggest the home literacy environment for these children differs from
that of typically developing peers. Dialogic reading is a strategy that parents of both typically
developing children and children with disabilities can apply within the context of the home
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 48
literacy environment to support oral language development and comprehension (Whitehurst,
Falco, Lonigan, Fischel, DeBarysche, Valdez-Menchaca, & Caufield, 1988).
Dialogic Reading
There is substantial evidence that dialogic reading supports oral language development
and comprehension in children (Whitehurst et al., 1988). Dialogic reading is an interactive
method of shared reading in which the child leads the storytelling and the adult acts as a
facilitator of oral language development and comprehension by asking questions and expanding
the child’s responses. Parents who receive training in dialogic reading strategies improve their
shared reading practices, such as engagement and questioning, with their children (Huebner &
Payne, 2010). With some modifications and enhancements, dialogic reading serves as a
promising approach to support the literacy and language development of children with language
delays and intellectual disabilities (Dale, Crain-Thoreson, Notari-Syerson, & Cole, 1996; Flynn,
2011; Jordan, Miller, & Riley, 2011).
Dialogic Reading as a Strategy to Support Oral Language Development and
Comprehension
Defining dialogic reading. Dialogic reading is an interactive, shared reading
practice focused on the enhancement and development of literacy and language skills in young
children. Dialogic reading differs significantly from traditional parent-child book reading,
specifically in regard to a shift of participant roles (Whitehurst, Arnold, Epstein, Angell, Smith,
& Fischel, 1994). In traditional parent-child book reading, the adult reads the text and the child
takes on the passive role as listener. In dialogic reading, the child takes an active role in
storytelling while the adult facilitates comprehension and vocabulary development through
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 49
active listening, questioning, and expansion of the child’s responses (Whitehurst, Falco, Lonigan,
Fischel, DeBarysche, Valdez-Menchaca, & Caufield, 1988).
Whitehurst et al. (1988) created two acronyms to assist adults facilitating dialogic
reading strategies during repeated, shared reading of text. PEER serves as a reminder for adults
to 1) prompt the child to say something about the book, 2) evaluate the child’s response, 3)
expand the child’s response, and 4) repeat the prompt. During subsequent readings, the child
takes on more responsibility for facilitating the discussion and the adult uses higher-level
prompts to develop comprehension and make connections to prior knowledge and experiences. A
second acronym, CROWD, describes the types of prompts adults may provide to children during
dialogic reading:
1. Completion, which requires the child to fill in a blank at the end of a sentence.
2. Recall, whereby the adult asks basic questions about a book the child has read.
3. Open-ended, whereby the adult coaches the child to explain what is happening in an
illustration.
4. “Wh” questions, such as who, what, when where, and why questions about the
illustrations or text.
5. Distancing, whereby the adult relates the illustrations and text to the child’s
experiences.
Efficacy of dialogic reading. Variations in the way parents read to their children account
for differences in children’s expressive language. Dialogic reading programs, whether one-to-one
interventions with parents and children (Whitehurst et al., 1988) or small groups of children
working with a teacher in a school setting, (Hargrave & Senechal, 2000; Huebner, 2006; Wasik,
Bond, & Hindman, 2006; Whitehurst, Arnold, Epstein, Angell, Smith, & Fischel, 1994),
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 50
demonstrate positive results on expressive language skills and to a lesser extent, receptive
vocabulary. Whitehurst et al. (1988) trained an experimental group of mothers of middle to upper
class two-year olds in a home-based dialogic reading. The intervention focused on higher order
questioning, expansions, and function or attribute questions. Compared to children in the control
group, whose mothers read to them in a traditional manner, children whose mothers received the
dialogic reading treatment scored higher in posttests of expressive language, demonstrating a six
to eight and a half month gain. The children whose mothers implemented the dialogic reading
practices also had a higher mean length of utterance, used more phrases, and used fewer single
words in book discussions.
In 1994, Whitehurst et al. generalized findings from the 1988 dialogic reading study to
preschool children from low-income families with language delays, noting statistically
significant increases on expressive vocabulary measures. Flynn (2011) found that dialogic
reading focuses on the development of expressive language, and therefore served as a critical
method of intervention for children at risk for reading failure due to developmental delays or
socioeconomic status. Other research supported dialogic reading as an effective strategy for
children with language delays (Dale, Crain-Thoreson, Notari-Syerson, & Cole, 1996; Justice,
Kaderaveck, Bowles, & Grimm, 2005).
Parent training in dialogic reading. Whitehurst et al. (1994) found the effects of
dialogic reading for toddlers and preschoolers strongest when dialogic reading was implemented
as a one-on-one activity. Parents serve as an appropriate resource for providing dialogic reading
support to their children for several reasons. Parents are motivated to support their children’s
literacy development, they have extended periods of time over which they can engage their child
in the practice, and they have special insight into their children’s personalities and interests (Dale,
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 51
Crain-Thoreson, Notari-Syerson, & Cole, 1996). While evidence supports dialogic reading as a
positive literacy practice to improve expressive and receptive language in children, most adults
do not engage in dialogic practices during parent-child book reading without intervention
(Huebner & Melzoff, 2005).
After engaging parents in a dialogic reading intervention, Huebner and Meltzoff (2005)
noted an average increase of dialogic reading behaviors from 20 to 55 in a five-minute reading
sample across 129 parents and their young children. The study compared three different parent
training methods, in-person instruction with a video, self-instruction by video and telephone
follow up, and self-instruction by video alone. While all groups increased their use of dialogic
reading strategies compared to their pre-instruction score, the group who received the in-person
instruction demonstrated the highest gains.
After controlling for maternal education, age of the child, and frequency of parent-child
reading, Huebner & Payne (2010) found that parents who participated in a dialogic reading
intervention when their children were two or three years old sustained implementation of the
dialogic reading strategies two years later. The treatment group of parents used on average 90%
more dialogic reading behaviors than the parents who did not participate in the dialogic reading
intervention. The results indicated that minimal parent training in dialogic reading strategies has
the potential to augment parents’ reading style and has an enduring effect on parent-child book
reading interactions.
Enhancement of dialogic reading to support literacy development in children with
language delays and disabilities. While children with language delays and other disabilities
require small group or individualized interventions to provide the instruction, support, and
feedback necessary to improve their reading and writing performance, providing extended
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 52
instruction of sufficient intensity proves challenging in a traditional school setting (Allor et al.,
2010; Dale et al., 1996). Parents serve as a potential resource to provide ongoing, extensive, one-
on-one support to their children beyond the school day (Dale et al., 1996).
In their study of the effects of a dialogic reading intervention for 33 mothers of children
with language delays, Dale et al. (1996) found parent participants improved dialogic questioning
techniques when compared to mothers who received conversational language training. The
authors found modest effect sizes for children’s rate of verbal responses, number of different
words, and mean length of utterance. Dale et al. (1996) concluded that a brief intervention in
dialogic reading improved both parents’ language facilitation techniques and children’s language
outcomes.
Flynn (2011) made recommendations for providing accommodations and modifications
to dialogic reading to support diverse learners. The author advised using objects and props along
with pictures in the text to support vocabulary development. Learners with speech and language
delays benefitted from additional time to respond, simple adult prompts, and focusing strategies.
While limited experimental research exists for adapting dialogic reading approaches for
children with severe cognitive disabilities, Jordan, Miller, and Riley (2011) propose several
reasons for using the approach with the population and provide guiding principles for
accommodating children with Down syndrome as they participate in dialogic reading. The
authors suggest that, within the context of dialogic reading, the adult can adapt the book
discussion to the appropriate level of receptive language to maximize comprehension, motivate
the child, and solve behavioral challenges. The one-on-one setting allows the adult to capitalize
on the social strengths of children with Down syndrome. Adults can facilitate language
production for children with Down syndrome during dialogic reading through the use of
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 53
modeling, expansion, scaffolds, and repetition. Repeated readings allow the child multiple
opportunities to generalize vocabulary and concepts over contexts and time (Chapman, Sindberg,
Bridge, Gigstead, & Hesketh, 2006). Jordan et al. (2011) suggest enhancement strategies in the
areas of cognition, social interactions, language, behavior, motor, and sensory development to
support the success of children with Down syndrome through dialogic reading.
In summary, as a parent practice designed to support literacy and language development,
dialogic reading serves as an effective and feasible strategy (Huebner & Payne, 2010; Whitehurst
et al., 1988). When parents participate in training on dialogic reading techniques, they implement
the techniques during shared reading experiences (Huebner & Payne, 2010). Dialogic reading
serves as an auspicious approach to accelerate the literacy and language development of children
with language delays and intellectual disabilities (Dale, Crain-Thoreson, Notari-Syerson, & Cole,
1996; Flynn, 2011; Jordan, Miller, & Riley, 2011). Parent motivational factors, such as beliefs,
expectations, and self-efficacy, impact parent behaviors as they implement home literacy
practices, such as dialogic reading, to improve the literacy development of their children.
Parent Motivation: Beliefs, Expectations, and Self-Efficacy
Several motivational factors, including beliefs, expectations, and self-efficacy relate to
parent behaviors as they prepare their children for academic success. Parent beliefs influence the
achievement and motivational strategies their children employ (Sigel, 1992). While research
concurs that parent beliefs and children’s academic performance relate, the degree and nature of
the relationship is a point of contention (Stephenson, Parrila, Georgiou, & Kirby, 2008). For
parents of children with disabilities, cultural and explanatory beliefs about the origins of the
disability affect parent expectations and outlook on raising their child. For parents of children
both with and without disabilities, high self-efficacy correlates with parenting practices that
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 54
bolster children’s development (Hastings & Brown, 2002; Steca, Bassi, Caprara, & Faye, 2011).
For parent of children with disabilities, several studies indicate a predictive, inverse relationship
between self-efficacy and stress (Frey, Greenberg, & Fewell, 1989; Friedrich, Wilturner, &
Cohen, 1985; Hastings & Brown, 2002; Krauss, 1993).
Influence of Parent Beliefs on Children’s Achievement and Motivation
Influence of parent beliefs on children’s achievement. While the literature suggests a
relationship between parent beliefs and children’s academic performance, both the strength and
nature of the relationship remain points of contention (Stephenson et al., 2008). While many
studies prior to 1993 found optimistic parent beliefs about children’s academic abilities related to
high reading performance (Stevenson, Parker, Wilkinson, Hegion, & Fish, 1976; Entwisle &
Hayduck, 1988), later research that controlled for prior reading levels noted reduced effects (Gill
& Reynolds, 1999; Halle, Kurtz-Costes, & Mahoney, 1997). In their review of the literature,
Aunola, Nurmi, Niemi, Lerkkanen, and Rasku-Puttonen (2002) cited several studies that
associated parent beliefs with children’s achievement related beliefs (Frome & Eccles, 1998;
Gottfried, 1985; Parsons, Adler, & Kaczala, 1982; Wigfiled & Asher, 1984), and subsequently,
children’s achievement related beliefs with school performance (Chapman & Tunmer, 1997).
Aunola et al. (2002) identified cross sectional design as a primary weaknesses in prior research,
and noted the reviewed studies did not examine the direction of the relationship between parent
beliefs and children’s achievement.
In their study of 111 six to seven year old children from Finland, Aunolo et al. (2002)
used longitudinal data to examine the extent to which children’s achievement strategies mediated
the impact of parent beliefs on children’s academic performance. The authors also examined the
degree to which children’s strategies and academic performance account for parent beliefs.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 55
Aunolo et al. found a predictive relationship between parent beliefs about children’s academic
performance and the types of achievement strategies employed by children at school. Parents
who reported positive beliefs about children’s academic competence amplified their children’s
use of task-focused strategies, which in turn contributed to improved reading performance. The
authors also established a predictive relationship between the academic strategies children used
and their parent beliefs about children’s school performance.
In a longitudinal study of 61 kindergarten children, Stephenson et al. (2008) examined
how home literacy, children’s task focused behavior, and parent beliefs and expectations about
their child’s reading ability impacted phonological sensitivity and letter knowledge on first grade
word reading. The authors’ findings contradicted previous studies that found reduced effects of
parent beliefs on achievement (Gill & Reynolds, 1999; Halle, Kurtz-Costes, & Mahoney, 1997),
noting parent beliefs predicted variance in both phonological sensitivity and word identification.
Similar to Aunolo et al. (2002), Stephenson et al. (2008), suggested that parent beliefs may have
an indirect impact on children’s performance, noting that parent beliefs predicted their children’s
task focused behavior, which mediated the relationship between improvements in reading
achievement and parent beliefs. This finding confirmed Eccles’ (1993) research that children’s
task related beliefs mediated the relationship between parent beliefs and their children’s
academic performance.
Influence of parent beliefs on children’s motivation. Multiple studies document the
notion that parent beliefs influence not only children’s achievement strategies, but their
motivational strategies as well (Sigel, 1992). Parent beliefs specific to children’s achievement
and abilities affect children’s intrinsic motivation, self-perceptions regarding academic ability,
perceived difficulty of tasks, and the amount of effort invested in tasks (Entwisle & Baker, 1983;
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 56
Frome & Eccles, 1998; Sigel, 1992; Wigfield & Asher, 1984; Auola et al., 2002). Similar to
findings regarding the relationship between parent beliefs and children’s achievement, parent
beliefs and children’s motivation also appear to have a reciprocal relationship. Entwisle and
Hayduk (1978) and Phillips (1987) found that parents who express positive beliefs about their
children’s abilities supply more encouraging feedback, enhancing children’s beliefs in their own
competency. As children internalize parent expectations, their self-perception influences
selection and application of achievement strategies (Bandura, 1993).
Parent beliefs also influence the effort children apply to tasks. Lyytinene, Rasku-
Puttonehn, Poikkeusa, Laaksom, Onatsut, & Nurmi (1994) examined the teaching strategies used
by 30 mothers of sons with learning disabilities. Parents who believed in their child’s
competence emboldened their children to apply more effort when engaged in demanding tasks,
which in turn resulted in children applying task focused behaviors. Parents with negative
achievement expectations provided fewer tasks that promoted problem solving, which led to high
levels of dependence and low levels of effort on the part of their children.
Perceived parental support contributes to children’s reading frequency and motivation. In
several qualitative studies, children reported that parent involvement and encouragement
influenced their reading practices and motivation (Edmunds & Bauserman, 2006); Strommen &
Mates, 2004; Klauda, 2009). In a study of 302 fourth and fifth grade students, Klauda and
Wigfield (2012) found that children’s perceived support from both their parents and their peers
accounted for variance in reading motivation and habits, controlling for reading achievement,
gender, and grade level. The authors noted a positive correlation between perceived support for
reading and knowledge goals, efficacy, perceived autonomy, and reading practices.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 57
Parent beliefs about children with disabilities. Danesco (1997) noted that studies of
parent perspectives on raising a child with a disability reveal cultural and explanatory beliefs
about the nature and origins of disabilities. By understanding beliefs and perspectives, service
providers may effectively engage families in interventions for their children. In their qualitative
study of 16 families of children with autism spectrum disorders and Down syndrome, King,
Baxter, Rosenbaum, Zwaigenbaum, and Bates (2009) identified three stances from which parents
viewed their child’s situation with regard to the disability: optimism, acceptance and
appreciation, and striving for change. The authors noted that families who took an optimistic
stance were future-oriented, hopeful, and determined to find solutions in the face of adversity.
Families oriented toward an acceptance and appreciation stance were present-oriented, and that
this stance in particular provided a sense of control. These families tended to perceive challenges
as opportunities for mastery. A stance oriented toward future opportunities for fixing problems or
striving for change gave families a sense of control. The striving stance results in goal oriented
behaviors, and for parents of children with disabilities, the stance may manifest in efforts toward
therapy and tutoring.
Parent beliefs about children’s intelligence corresponded with expectations for their
children’s academic achievement (Wentzel, 1998). Parents with high expectations cultivated
their children’s self-efficacy beliefs and task focused behavior, while children of parents with
low expectations for their academic achievement engaged in more task avoidant behaviors
(Aunola, et al., 2002). Neuenshwander, Vida, Garrett, and Eccles (2007) found that parent
expectations predicted student achievement, with students’ self-concept mediating the
relationship.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 58
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy serves as a critical mediator to achievement behaviors (Schunk & Pajares,
2005; Valentine, DuBois, & Cooper, 2004), as self-efficacy beliefs affect people’s thoughts,
feelings, motivations, and behaviors (Bandura, 1997). Bandura (1986) defines self-efficacy as,
“People’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to
attain designated types of performances” (p. 391). While self-concept and self-confidence are
global in nature, self-efficacy reflects a specific, situational perspective (Shunk, Pintrich, &
Meece, 2008). Self-efficacy refers to perceived competence within a specific action or skill
within a broader domain.
Self-efficacy impacts three indices of motivation: active choice, persistence, and mental
effort (Shunk et al., 2008). Individuals who have high self-efficacy for a task are likely to engage
in the task, while individuals with low self-efficacy tend to avoid the task. In terms of mental
effort, individuals with high self-efficacy will expend adequate exertion to complete the task
accurately. Individuals who perceive themselves as efficacious will likely persist through
challenges to task completion, while those with low self-efficacy may abandon the task when
faced with barriers.
Bandura (1977) noted four sources of self-efficacy beliefs: performance accomplishments,
vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and psychological states. An individual’s previous
performance, or mastery experience, serves as a strong influence on self-efficacy. When
individuals succeed on a task, their self-efficacy for future performance on the same task or
similar tasks improves. By observing other individuals perform a task, individuals form self-
efficacy beliefs through vicarious experience. If an individual observes a model they perceive to
be similar to themselves succeed, their self-efficacy for the same task improves. Social
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 59
persuasions serve as another source of self-efficacy. The persuader must balance positive
messaging to cultivate an individual’s beliefs in their own capabilities to succeed at the task
while ensuring the task is attainable for the individuals. An individual’s affective state also
influences self-efficacy beliefs. As the individual performs a task, they receive feedback from the
emotions they experience, and these emotions provide insight into anticipated success or failure.
Each source of self-efficacy provides critical information that form an individual’s judgment of
their capability related to a specific task.
Parental self-efficacy. Parents’ perceived self-efficacy bolsters their children’s
development (Steca et al., 2011). According to Bandura (1997), parental self-efficacy refers to
the specific knowledge of behaviors involved in raising children and the perceived confidence
that the individual has to execute parenting behaviors. Coleman and Karraker (1997) expanded
the definition by noting the importance of parents’ perceived confidence in positively influencing
their children’s development. Ardelt & Eccles (2001) noted parental self-efficacy relates to
parent beliefs in their capabilities to impact their children’s behavior and their children’s
environment to facilitate development.
Bandura, Barbarnelli, Caprara, and Pastorelli (1996) noted parenting efficacy positively
contributed to development across various socioeconomic status groups, family structures, and
cultural settings. Parents with high self-efficacy believed they could engage in positive parenting
behaviors, respond to their children’s needs, engage with their children, use coping strategies
when faced with challenges (Coleman & Karraker, 1998), and positively influence their
children’s academic outcomes (Hoover-Dempsey, Basseler, & Brissie, 1992). Highly efficacious
parents demonstrated parenting behaviors to promote children’s academic efficacy and self-
regulated learning (Bandura et al., 1996) and exhibited greater involvement in their children’s
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 60
education (Watkins, 1997). Parents with low self-efficacy tended to have intensified perceptions
of difficulties in raising their child, revealed defensive and controlling behaviors, and reported
higher levels of stress (Coleman & Karraker, 1998).
Bandura et al. (1996) linked parental self-efficacy with parent aspirations. Parents with
high self-efficacy sought high academic goals for their children, in turn raising their children’s
self-efficacy and aspirations. Mothers with high parental self-efficacy positively influenced their
children’s reading self-perceptions and achievement (Lynch, 2002). Shunk (1989) noted parental
self-efficacy to influence their child’s success predicts their inclination to engage in their child’s
education.
Furstenberg (1993) and Bandura (1997) purport a reciprocal relationship between
parental self-efficacy beliefs, promotive parenting strategies, and children’s development.
Through mastery experiences, parents who experience success in parenting demonstrate
enhanced parenting self-efficacy. Parental self-efficacy and beliefs in the worth of promotive
strategies are also enhanced when children experience positive growth in their development
(Ardelt & Eccles, 2001). Parents gain critical feedback about their competence from parent-child
communications (Goodnow, 1988).
Self-efficacy of parents of students with special needs. The literature on the self-efficacy
of parents of children with developmental disabilities demonstrated a predictive relationship
between parental self-efficacy and parental stress (Frey et al., 1989; Freidrich et al., 1985;
Hastings & Brown, 2002; Krauss, 1993). For this population of parents, child level factors, such
as behavioral challenges and caregiving demands, predict parental efficacy (Heller, 1993). As
parents learn more about their child’s diagnosis, viable interventions, and resources for
assistance, patterns of self-efficacy beliefs begin to emerge (Vincent & Houlihan, 1991). If
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 61
parents believe they have control over their child’s behavior, the ability to manage the child’s
needs, understand the child’s problems, or advocate for appropriate supports, they demonstrate
higher levels of self-efficacy (Boothroyd, 1997). In a qualitative study of parents of children with
disabilities, Pakenham, Sofronoff, and Samious (2004) found that themes of benefit finding and
sense making positively related to parental self-efficacy.
Several studies revealed an inverse relationship between parental self-efficacy and
parental stress. Beckman (1991) noted parents of children with disabilities reported higher levels
of stress and more demands of caregiving than parents without disabilities; mothers reported
higher levels of stress than fathers. Results of the study demonstrated a negative correlation
between stress and the amount of support available for parents of children with disabilities.
In their study of 26 mothers and 20 fathers of children with autism, Hastings and Brown
(2002) examined the relationship among children’s behavior problems, parental self-efficacy,
anxiety, and depression. For mothers, self-efficacy mediated the relationship between children’s
behavior problems and parental anxiety and depression. Fathers with high self-efficacy
experienced less anxiety when dealing with their children’s behavior problems compared to
fathers with low self-efficacy.
Kuhn and Carter (2006) examined maternal self-efficacy and parenting cognitions in a
survey of 170 mothers of children with autism. The authors operationalized parenting cognitions
as mothers’ attitudes, thoughts, and beliefs. The authors found that, after controlling for time
from the diagnosis and the manifestation of disability in another child, depression, parenting
stress, agency, and guilt accounted for variance in maternal self-efficacy. Kuhn and Carter
(2006) hypothesized that interventions focused on the well being of the parent and parenting
cognitions would positively impact parental self-efficacy.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 62
Boyraz and Sayger (2011) examined the relationship between paternal self-efficacy and
the well being of 63 fathers of children with disabilities and 217 fathers of children without
disabilities. The authors found that both family cohesion and paternal self-efficacy predicted the
well being of fathers. The predictive relationship applied to both fathers of children with and
without disabilities.
The literature reports mixed results in terms of differences in the parental self-efficacy of
parents of children with disabilities as compared to parents of typically developing children. In a
study of 108 parents comparing the parent perceptions of the impact of having a child with or
without a disability, Beckman (1991) found that mothers of children with disabilities reported
lower levels of self-efficacy compared to mothers of children without disabilities. Al-Kandari &
Al-Qashan’s (2010) findings contradicted Beckman’s. In their study of 95 Kuwaiti mothers of
children with developmental disabilities, including intellectual developmental disabilities and
Down syndrome, Al-Kandari & Al-Qashan (2010) found that mothers of children with
developmental disabilities held similar parental self-efficacy beliefs as mothers of typically
developing children after controlling for the mother’s age and the child’s age and gender.
In summary, parent beliefs, expectations, and self-efficacy impact the behaviors parents
employ as they raise their children and prepare them for educational experiences. Parent beliefs
influence both the achievement and motivational behaviors of their children (Sigel, 1992).
Although multiple studies document the relationship between academic performance and parent
beliefs, the strength and nature of the relationship remains a matter of dispute (Stephenson et al.,
2008). For parents of typically developing children and children with disabilities, high self-
efficacy correlates with parenting practices that positively impact children’s development
(Hastings & Brown, 2002; Steca et al., 2011). For parent of children with disabilities, especially,
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 63
low self-efficacy leads to high levels of stress (Frey et al., 1989; Freidrich et al., 1985; Hastings
& Brown, 2002; Krauss, 1993). Intervention supports for parents of children with disabilities
may therefore focus on building both parent skills for facilitating their child’s academic
development and parental self-efficacy for performing the tasks and strategies learned during
parent training programs.
Characteristics of Effective Parent Training Programs
A significant body of research has shown that parents can effectively serve as tutors to
assist their children in making academic progress (Collins & Matthey, 2001; Elias, Hay, Homel,
& Freiberg, 2006; Morgan & Goldstein, 2004). Stanovich (1986) found that while serving as
tutors for their children, parents are instinctively able to respond to the unique needs of their
child, respond in a sensitive manner to their child’s requests and children respond to their parents’
efforts with enthusiasm. Sénéchal & Young (2008) also noted a positive effect of parent
involvement on children’s reading acquisition.
Tutoring Activities and Styles
Parents who serve as tutors to their children employ a variety of tutoring activities and
styles, and these activities and styles may impact the academic and emotional outcomes their
children experience (Wooley & Hay, 2007). In their study of school literacy programs designed
to promote family involvement, Sheldon & Epstein (2005) noted that while general parent
involvement did not significantly impact general academic achievement, subject-specific parent
involvement was likely to improve the academic achievement of children in the intended subject
areas. In a meta-analytic review of family literacy interventions and their impact on children’s
reading acquisition, Sénéchal & Young (2008) found larger effect sizes for interventions where
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 64
parents tutored their children using specific activities as compared to interventions where parents
simply listened to their children read or read to their children.
Styles of parent tutoring also impact academic and emotional outcomes for children.
Collins and Matthey (2001) found differences in tutoring styles between mothers of children
with and without reading difficulties; mothers of children with reading difficulties tended to
incorporate more negative feedback. Parent tutors without adequate training tended to provide
overly critical feedback and had difficulty providing supportive cues and comments to their
children. Wooley and Hay (2007) noted such negative feedback may result in frustration,
tantrums, and avoidance of reading on the part of the child. The authors purport that training
tutors to provide positive, effective feedback provides a sense of security to the child, encourages
risk taking, builds self-confidence, develops problem solving, and creates independent readers.
The feedback tutors provide in a one-to-one environment not only improves the child’s
engagement with and attention to the text, but also provides the child with an opportunity to
apply a variety of reading strategies (Coleman & Bornholdt, 2003).
Instructional Design of Effective Parent Training ProgramsSound instructional principles
and concepts should underlie training programs for parents (Matthews & Hudson, 2001).
Research literature should provide theoretical and empirical support for the components, design,
methods, and activities used throughout the program. In their literature review, Wooley and Hay
(2007) noted several key factors for designers of tutor training programs to consider. Tutors
require explicit information about processes and procedures for implementing instructional
strategies with children. Program designers and trainers can support tutors by providing a range
of resources, consistent support, and routine feedback (Collins and Matthey, 2001). In order to
manage cognitive load of tutors, the intervention should not be too large or too complex, as such
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 65
interventions have a negative impact on program outcomes. Motivation and self-efficacy are key
factors in accomplishing tasks required of tutors (Roe and Vukelich, 2001). Matthews and
Hudson (2001) found that few groups who administer parent education and training programs
actually evaluate how the program impacts the families they are designed to serve. The authors
recommend conducting evaluations before, during, and after the implementation of parent
training programs.
Designing and measuring objectives for parent training programs. Program
developers should focus on creating appropriate and acceptable objectives for parent training
programs (Matthews & Hudson, 2001). Objectives that state target behaviors using positive
language build on the strengths of parents and children. The authors recommend (a) expressing
objectives focused on behaviors of the learner, not the teacher; (b) describing the objectives in
specific behavioral terms to allow for accurate observation and measurement; (c) describing
conditions for performance of the behavior; and (d) explaining the performance criterion for the
behavior.
Program designers should specify outcomes for parent training prior to the start of the
training and consider the objectives when selecting appropriate measurement tools (Matthews &
Hudson, 2001). Multiple tools provide a multifaceted picture of the attainment of training
objectives. At minimum, the authors recommend the tools measure behavioral changes in
children and the acquisition of skills in parents. Program evaluators can measure skill acquisition
and application in parents through observation and analysis of role-plays during the training to
help the trainer calibrate strategies to ensure parents learn the intended objectives. Program
designers can evaluate the generalization of parent training by comparing parent and child
behaviors pre and post intervention. Parent and child behaviors may be measured directly
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 66
through observation and indirectly through parent reports about their own or their children’s
behaviors. In addition to measuring parent skill acquisition and application, the authors
recommend evaluating parent satisfaction with the training and parent opinions regarding
strategies used during the program.
Parent participation. Matthews and Hudson (2001) argue that the intensity of parent
participation and the fidelity with which parents implement the strategies affect the success of
the program; therefore, it is necessary for program designers and trainers to track parent
participation and task completion. Providing a positive and supportive training environment
correlates with parent completion of the training program and implementation of the techniques
and strategies they learned during the program (Eisner & Meidert, 2011). Regular assessment of
parents’ perception of and responses to the training strategies and methods provides program
designers and trainers an opportunity to make adjustments to the program to better meet the
needs and preferences of participants (Matthews & Hudson, 2001).
Matthews and Hudson (2001) purport that program effectiveness is improved if parents
implement the methods, strategies, and tools with fidelity. Monitoring performance against
specific written criteria, observing video models, and using intervention manuals serve as
strategies to increase fidelity of implementation. Briesch, Chafouleas, Lebel, & Blom-Hoffman
(2008) studied six caregivers to determine the integrity with which they implemented dialogic
reading practices after viewing a training videotape on the method. The authors found that
learning and application of dialogic reading strategies increased after viewing the videotape, but
that supplemental support was required to ensure the caregivers implemented the strategies with
fidelity.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 67
Conclusion
Although individuals with Down syndrome share a cognitive phenotype, specific
characteristics related to the phenotype vary across the population (Silverman, 2007). These
characteristics, however, manifest themselves to different degrees, resulting in complex sets of
strengths and needs that vary by individual. Whether the characteristics comprising the cognitive
phenotype of individuals with Down syndrome represent a delay or deviation as compared to
typically developing individuals is a matter of debate in the literature.
For individuals with Down syndrome, the majority of the research specific to literacy
instruction has focused on sight word and phonics based approaches (Browder et al., 2006).
Limited research exists with regard to the development of reading comprehension and the
instructional strategies most effective for addressing the skill (Abbeduto et al., 2007; Browder et
al., 2006; Morgan et al., 2004). Whether teaching through a sight word based approach, a
phonics based approach, or a comprehensive approach, individuals with Down syndrome require
extensive time and support to acquire literacy skills compared to typically developing peers
(Allor et al., 2010). The typical school provides insufficient time to meet the intensive
instructional demands and personalized supports required by individuals with Down syndrome
(Fidler & Nadel, 2007), therefore, these individuals may benefit from engagement in
supplemental home literacy practices to support the development of literacy skills.
Research on early language and literacy acquisition notes that children attain
foundational skills within the context of a home literacy environment (Whitehurst & Lonigan,
1998). In addition to the development of language and literacy skills through engagement at
home with language and book reading (Al Otaiba, Lewis, Whalon, Dyrlund, & McKenzie, 2009;
Arnold, Lonigan, Whitehurst, & Epstein, 1994; Senechal, LeFevre, Thomas, & Daley, 1998),
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 68
parent beliefs, expectations, and goals for their children’s literacy achievement affect children’s
behavior, motivation, and performance (Debaryshe, 1995; Senechal & LeFevre, 2002). While
research on the home literacy environments and experiences of children with cognitive
disabilities is limited, several existing studies suggest the home literacy environment for these
children differs from that of typically developing peers (Weikle & Hadadian, 2004; Marvin,
1994; Marvin & Miranda, 1993; Trenholm & Mirenda, 2006; van der Schuit et al., 2009).
Dialogic reading serves as an effective and feasible strategy as a parent supported reading
intervention to accelerate literacy and language skills for both typically developing children and
children with disabilities (Dale et al., 1996; Flynn, 2011; Huebner & Payne, 2010; Jordan et al.,
2011; Whitehurst et al., 1988). While limited empirical evidence exists to identify the most
effective methods of adapting dialogic reading practices for children with severe cognitive
abilities, Jordan et al. (2011) provide guiding principles for accommodating the needs of such
children during dialogic reading experiences. Parent motivational factors, such as beliefs,
expectations, and self-efficacy, impact parent behaviors as they implement home literacy
practices, such as dialogic reading, to improve the literacy development of their children. Parents
of children with disabilities demonstrate an inverse relationship between self-efficacy and levels
of stress (Frey et al., 1989; Freidrich et al., 1985; Hastings & Brown, 2002; Krauss, 1993),
therefore, these parents in particular may benefit from interventions focused on building self-
efficacy for supporting their children’s academic performance.
Parents can serve in the role of a tutor to assist their children in learning to read (Collins
& Matthey, 2001; Elias, Hay, Homel, & Freiberg, 2006; Morgan & Goldstein, 2004). Program
developers should base program design on research-based instructional principles and carefully
consider the components, design, methods and activities included in the program (Matthews &
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 69
Hudson, 2001). Sound and measurable objectives, multiple methods of assessment, and
strategies to promote parent participation and fidelity of implementation are key considerations
for the developers of parent training programs.
In order to provide the necessary level of intensity in instruction to improve literacy
outcomes for children with Down syndrome, this study examined the effectiveness of an
intervention designed to teach parents of children with Down syndrome dialogic reading
practices. The study examined the relationship between parent participation in the dialogic
reading intervention and parent self-efficacy for employing dialogic reading practices when
reading with their child. The researcher observed parent-child book reading behaviors to see if
practices change after parent participation in the intervention. The study explored links between
parent self-efficacy for dialogic reading and the practices parents employ during parent-child
book reading. The researcher also explored the behaviors of children with Down syndrome
during parent-child book reading.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 70
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
While explicit, comprehensive, and extended reading instruction that includes intense
amounts of repetition and practice is required to produce meaningful gains for children with
intellectual disabilities, providing this type of instruction in the traditional school setting proves
challenging (Allor et al., 2010). The home setting serves as an opportunity for students to
practice and apply literacy skills beyond the school day. Family members play a key role in
supporting this extended literacy development in the home environment. Although home literacy
experiences, including parent–child book reading and parental beliefs about reading, account for
a significant amount of children’s later reading achievement, the research on the home literacy
environments and experiences of children with cognitive disabilities is limited (Trenholm &
Mirenda, 2006; van der Schuit et al., 2009).
While comprehending text proves challenging for individuals with Down syndrome,
limited research exists on effective instructional strategies for teaching reading comprehension to
the population (Morgan et al., 2004). Dialogic reading serves as a promising potential strategy
for supporting the reading comprehension of children with Down syndrome (Jordan et al., 2011).
Parents of children with Down syndrome may extend the comprehension skills their children
learn at school within the home setting through the use of dialogic reading practices.
According to Bandura (1997), an individual’s efficacy beliefs about their abilities affect
how they think, feel, motivate themselves, and behave. Individuals may underperform because
they lack skills and knowledge or because they experience self-doubt. Training in dialogic
reading practices may improve the self-efficacy of parents when engaged in parent-child book
reading activities designed to improve the comprehension of children with Down syndrome.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 71
The purpose of the study is to conduct a non-randomized correlational study of an
intervention designed to teach parents of children with Down syndrome dialogic reading
techniques. The study (a) determines whether participation in an intervention designed to teach
parents of children with Down syndrome dialogic reading strategies relates to their self-efficacy
for reading with their children; (b) determines whether participation in an intervention designed
to teach parents of children with Down syndrome dialogic reading strategies relates to the
practices parents employ when reading with their children; (c) determines if there is a
relationship between self-efficacy for dialogic reading and the practices parents of children with
Down syndrome employ during parent-child book reading; and (d) determines the observable
behaviors of children with Down syndrome during parent-child book reading interactions. Given
the nature of the study, the researcher expects to see changes in self-efficacy and behavior;
however, the study will also examine the nature of the changes and how the changes manifest.
This chapter includes the study’s research questions and a description of the research
methodology. The research methodology section identifies the sampling procedure and
population, instrumentation, and describes procedures for data collection and analysis.
Research Questions
The study addresses four research questions:
1. Is there a difference in pre/post parent self-efficacy scales after participation
in an intervention designed to teach parents of children with Down syndrome
dialogic reading strategies?
2. How do parent behaviors change during parent-child book reading after
participation in an intervention designed to teach parents of children with Down
syndrome dialogic reading strategies?
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 72
3. Is there a relationship between self-efficacy for dialogic reading and
practices during parent-child book reading for parents of children with Down
syndrome?
4. What are the observable behaviors of children with Down syndrome during
parent-child book reading?
Research Design
The researcher conducted a non-randomized correlational study of a dialogic reading
intervention using a pre/post design. While a pre/post design does not allow for causal inference
of the effectiveness of an intervention, the design serves as an improvement over a post only
research design (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). The pre/post design included two occasions of
measurement.
According to Patton (2002), combining methods strengthens a research design. Data
triangulation involves the use of a variety of data sources and may include both quantitative and
qualitative data. The researcher collected data from multiple measures, including two
quantitative methods, a self-efficacy scale and a dialogic reading inventory, and three qualitative
methods, parent interviews, observations of parent-child book reading interactions, and a parent
perception survey.
Research questions one and two examined separate dependent and independent variables.
For the first research question, the study examined whether the independent variable,
participation in the dialogic book reading intervention, influenced the dependent variable, parent
self-efficacy for reading with their children. For the second research question the study
investigated whether the independent variable, participating in the dialogic reading intervention,
influenced the dependent variable, parent practices during parent-child book reading. For the
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 73
third research question, the study explored the correlation between self-efficacy for dialogic
reading and the practices parent employ during parent-child book reading interactions. Finally,
the study examined the observable behaviors of children with Down syndrome during parent-
child book reading.
Table 1 shows the timeline for data collection for the study. The study included two
occasions of measurement, the first occurring prior to the dialogic reading intervention and the
second occurring a month after the completion of the dialogic reading intervention. Prior to
conducting the dialogic reading intervention, the researcher met with parent participants to
conduct an interview about parent-child book reading practices, administer a self-efficacy survey
related to dialogic reading practices, and observe a parent-child book reading interaction. After
completing the first phase of data collection for all participants, the researcher delivered the 90-
minute dialogic reading intervention. During the second occasion of measurement, the researcher
re-administered the self-efficacy survey, observed parent-child book reading interactions, and
surveyed parents to determine parent perceptions of the dialogic reading intervention and related
job aids.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 74
Table 1
Timeline for Data Collection
Parent
Cohort
One
Parent
Cohort
Two
Parent
Cohort
Three
Parent
Cohort
Four
Parent Recruitment 9/18/12 9/19/12 9/20/12 9/8/12
Parent Interviews 9/25/12 9/26/12 9/27/12 10/13/12
Parent self-efficacy survey (round 1) 9/25/12 9/26/12 9/27/12 10/13/12
Observation of parent-child book reading
(round 1)
9/25/12 9/26/12 9/27/12 10/13/12
Intervention 10/2/12,
10/9/12
10/3/12,
10/10/12
10/4/12,
10/11/12
10/10/12
Parent self-efficacy survey (round 2) 11/6/12 11/7/12 11/8/12 12/8/12
Observation of parent-child book reading
(round 2)
11/6/12 11/7/12 11/8/12 12/8/12
Parent perception survey 11/6/12 11/7/12 11/8/12 12/8/12
Self-efficacy determines behavioral change (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy expectancies
influence the choice to engage in a behavior, determine the effort expended during the task, and
account for an individual’s persistence in the face of adversity. Self-report measures using scales
serve as an accurate measure of an individual’s self-efficacy, especially if the scales are written
aligned to behaviors required of a specific task. The researcher designed a self-efficacy scale
(Parent Self-Efficacy Scale for Dialogic Reading) aligned to behaviors from the Dialogic
Reading Inventory for Parent-child book reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010) to determine each
parent’s degree of self-efficacy for dialogic reading practices during parent-child book reading.
The researcher conducted five to 15 minute observations of parent-child book reading by
videotaping the interactions. The researcher viewed the videotapes to inventory the use of
specific dialogic reading practices by parents and specific behaviors of children during the
observation. To supplement information gathered about parent-child book reading practices
through observation, the researcher conducted parent interviews as a qualitative measure to
capture nuances of parent-child book reading practices and collected data from a survey designed
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 75
to capture parent perceptions of the dialogic reading intervention and job aides provided during
the intervention (Parent Perception Survey). By triangulating data collected from multiple
sources, the self-efficacy scale, parent interviews, observations of parent-child book reading, and
the parent perception survey, the researcher attempted to gain a more complete understanding of
parent-child book reading practices for children with Down syndrome.
Population and Sample
Population
The sample for the study included 28 parents of children with Down syndrome. As
shown in Table 2, when asked to identify their race, 23 parents identified as White, four of who
identified as Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano and four of who indicated they were of a
different Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin. Two parents indicated they were Chinese, two
parents identified as Filipino, and one parent identified as Native American/Alaska Native.
Table 2
Parent Race
Race N=28
White 23
Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano 4
Another Hispanic, Latino, Spanish Origin 4
Chinese 2
Filipino 2
Native American/Alaska Native 1

Of the participating parents, twenty-four were female and four were male. When asked to
indicate their highest level of education, two parents indicated they earned a professional degree
(Table 3). Four earned their master’s degree and three others indicated they had some graduate
credit. The majority of the participants, 16, indicated their highest level of education was a four-
year college degree. One parent obtained a two-year college degree, one indicated they had taken
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 76
some college courses, and one indicated they completed some high school. In terms of
occupation, seven participants were employed as educators during the study while the remaining
21 were not employed as educators.
Table 3
Parent Highest Level of Education
Highest Level of Education N=28
Professional Degree 2
Master’s Degree 4
Some Graduate Credit 3
Four Year College Degree 16
Two Year College Degree 1
Some College 1
Some High School 1

Children participating in the study ranged from two to 17 years of age (Table 4). Six
children fell within the age range of two to four years old, nine children fell within the five to
seven year old age range, three children fell within the eight to 10 year old age range, seven
children fell within the 11-13 year old age range, and three children fell within the 14-17 year old
age range.
Table 4
Age of Children
Age Range N=28
Two to Four Years Old 6
Five to Seven Years Old 9
Eight to 10 Years Old 3
11-13 Years Old 7
14-17 Years Old 3

All children participate in one of two literacy programs at the Together is Better Literacy
Program. Of the children participating in the study, two were new to the program, four had
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 77
attended the program between one and six months, one had attended the program between seven
and 11 months, six had attended the program between 12 and 23 months, and 15 had attended the
program 24 months or longer (Table 5).
Table 5
Length of Participation in the Together is Better Literacy Program
Length of Participation N=28
New to the Program 2
Between One and Six Months 4
Between Seven and 11 Months 1
Between 12 and 23 Months 6
24 Months or Longer 15

Sample
The study used critical case sampling to sample a group of participating parents and
children with Down syndrome. While critical case sampling does not permit broad
generalizations to the population, it does allow the researcher to make logical generalizations and
apply findings using the evidence produced. Parents of children with Down syndrome who are
members of the Together is Better organization serve as an example of a critical case because
they are motivated to seek out supplemental academic support beyond that provided through the
public school system. Participation in the Together is Better organization requires parents to
serve as tutors to their children at home. Since these parents actively choose to enroll their
children in the program and have agreed to extend literacy goals from the program to the home
environment, the study proposed that if the intervention will be effective with any population, it
will be effective with this particular group of parents. Testing the efficacy of the intervention
with a population who has already demonstrated a willingness to tutor their children in the home
environment will eliminate the factor as a potential confound of the study. If efficacy of the
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 78
intervention is demonstrated with a population of parent participants already motivated to tutor
their child at home, the intervention may then warrant future research to determine if it is worth
expanding to a broader pool of parent participants.
Instrumentation
Four data collection measures for the study provided the tools to investigate the influence
of a dialogic reading intervention on participating parents and their children with Down
syndrome:
1. Observations of parent-child book reading practices using the Dialogic Reading
Inventory for Parent-child book reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010).
2. Parent Self-Efficacy Scale for Dialogic Reading.
3. Parent interviews.
4. Parent Perception Survey.
Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-child book reading. Conducting observations
of parent-child book reading using the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-child book reading
(Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010) provided information about book reading practices on the part of
both the parent and the child specific to four domains of literacy development. The inventory,
shown in Appendix B, includes three items related to print awareness/alphabet awareness, six
items related to comprehension/vocabulary, four items related to phonological awareness, and
four items related to attention to task. The Cronbach’s alpha for the original study by Dixon-
Krauss et al. (2010) was .89. For this study, the Cronbach’s alpha for the inventory was also .89.
Parent Self-Efficacy Scale for Dialogic Reading. A self-efficacy scale for parents
aligned to the dialogic reading practices on the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-child
book reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010) provided insight into parent beliefs about their abilities
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 79
to successfully engage in specific dialogic reading practices with their child. The researcher first
used the tool to collect demographic information about the race, gender, highest level of
education, and occupation of the participants. The researcher developed the self-efficacy scales
using the Guide for Conducting Self-Efficacy Scales (Bandura, 2006) and tested the reliability of
the self-efficacy scales prior to conducting the study. The print awareness and alphabet
knowledge subscale consisted of three items (α = .71), the comprehension and vocabulary
subscale consisted of six items (α = .81), the phonological awareness subscale consisted of four
items (α = .95), and the attention to task subscale consisted of five items (α = .82). For the actual
study, all subcategories of the Parent Self-Efficacy Scale demonstrated adequate reliability: print
awareness and alphabet knowledge (α =.80), comprehension and vocabulary (α =.93), the
phonological awareness subscale (α =.92), and the attention to text subscale (α =.70).
Parent interviews. Parent interviews provided context for the quantitative information
gathered from the parent-child book reading observations and parent self-efficacy scale. The
questions posed during the parent interviews provided qualitative data on several key topics,
including the frequency of and setting for parent-child book reading, the routines and strategies
employed by parents during parent-child book reading, previous parent training for supporting
the literacy development of their children, and the successes and challenges parents experience
when reading with their children. Uniform interview questions, shown in Appendix C, provided
a consistent protocol for conducting interviews. Twelve parents participated in the interviews.
Seven interviews were conducted in person at the study site and five interviews were conducted
by phone.
Parent Perception Survey. The Parent Perception Survey administered at the end of the
study provided a qualitative measure of parent perceptions regarding their participation in the
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 80
dialogic reading and their use of the job aids employed during the training. Of the 28 parent
participants, 25 completed the Parent Perception Survey. Parent perception survey questions are
shown in Appendix D.
The use of four sources of data (a) observations of parent-child reading, (b) parent self-
efficacy scales, (c) parent interviews, and (d) a parent perception survey reinforced the reliability
of the data collected and the validity of subsequent findings. The use of uniform interview and
observation forms improved the accuracy of data gathering. The triangulation of the data allowed
the researcher to identify themes and connections across the data.
Data Collection
Prior to the intervention, the researcher conducted 15 minute parent interviews in person
adjacent to parent meetings for the Together is Better Literacy program and by phone to gain
qualitative insight into parent-child book reading practices. The researcher recorded the data
through note taking to ensure accurate capture and inclusion of direct quotations and nuances of
the participant responses. The researcher administered the Parent Self-Efficacy Scale for
Dialogic Reading during parent meetings for the Together is Better Literacy program. Parent-
child book reading interactions were videotaped prior to the start of the intervention to gain
insight into strategies, practices, and behaviors exhibited by parents and children.
After the intervention, the researcher re-administered the Parent Self-Efficacy Scale for
Dialogic Reading during parent meetings for the Together is Better Literacy program and
collected written responses to the Parent Perception Survey. The researcher videotaped parent-
child book reading interactions to observe changes in parent practices and child behaviors.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 81
Dialogic Reading Intervention
The researcher conducted the dialogic reading intervention for four cohorts of parents. As
the intervention occurred during the participants’ regularly scheduled meeting times at the
Together is Better organization, three of the parent cohorts participated in two 45-minute
intervention sessions scheduled one week apart. The fourth cohort of parents participated in one
90-minute intervention session. Each cohort ranged in group size from six to 10 participants.
The dialogic reading intervention focused on three outcomes:
1. Understand the purpose and basic elements of dialogic reading.
2. Apply modified dialogic reading questioning techniques and prompts during
parent-child book reading.
3. Create dialogic reading questions and prompts appropriate for specific text.
The agenda included three main sections with corresponding objectives.
1. Section One: Dialogic Reading Basics and Benefits
• Summarize the basic elements of dialogic reading.
• Explain the purpose and benefits of using dialogic reading with children with
Down syndrome.
2. Section Two: Dialogic Reading Procedures, Prompts, and Modifications
• Execute the modified steps in the PEER sequence (prompt, evaluate, expand,
repeat) when reading with your child.
• Use a variety of CROWD prompts (completion, recall, open-ended, “wh”, and
distancing) when reading with your child.
• Implement modified dialogic reading questions and prompts when reading
with your child.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 82
3. Section Three: Resources to Support Dialogic Reading
• Generate dialogic reading questions and prompts for use with fiction and non-
fiction text.
The researcher created materials for the presentation including a slideshow, participant
workbook, videos, and job-aids. During the opening section of the presentation, participants had
an opportunity to share joys and challenges related to reading at home with their child. The
researcher then defined terminology related to dialogic reading. Participants observed a brief
video of Dr. Grover Whitehurst, the developer of the dialogic reading method, sharing an
overview and the purpose of the method (Whitehurst et al., 1988). The researcher then shared
results of dialogic reading studies with typically developing children and discussed application of
the findings to children with language delays (Whitehurst et al., 1994; Dale, Crain-Thoreson,
Notari-Syerson, & Cole, 1996; Justice, Kaderaveck, Bowles, & Grimm, 2005) and
developmental delays (Flynn, 2011).
The researcher discussed the importance of engaging in multiple reads of the same text
for dialogic reading. Participants were directed to read a text the first time with their child for
enjoyment and to help familiarize their child with the text. On subsequent reads, the researcher
asked the participants to use the dialogic reading techniques they learned in the intervention. For
the final data collection, the researcher requested participants use a text they had read at least
once with their child.
The researcher described the steps in the dialogic reading technique of the PEER
sequence (Whitehurst et al., 1988). The PEER acronym stands for prompt, evaluate, expand, and
repeat. To engage in the PEER sequence, the adult prompts the child with a question about the
text. After the child responds, the adult evaluates the response for accuracy. The adult then
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 83
expands the child’s response by adding additional words or gently correcting the response. The
child then repeats the adult’s expanded response. The participants observed two videos of
different parents demonstrating the PEER sequence with typically developing children.
Observing models enables and motivates participants to change practice by providing
information and guidance to participants (Bandura, 2001).
The researcher then described and demonstrated modifications to the PEER sequence for
children with Down syndrome. The first modification applied to the prompt step of the PEER
sequence. Instead of prompting with a question, the modified step requires the adult to provide a
model of an answer before asking the child the question to ensure errorless learning. Errorless
learning refers to instruction designed to increase the likelihood of a correct response by
providing explicit instructional prompts and manipulation of consequences. Several studies
demonstrate the effectiveness of errorless learning (Haupt, Van Kirk, and Terraciano, 1975;
MacDuff, Krantz, and McClannahan, 1993; Malott, Whaley, & Malott, 1997). The Together is
Better organization incorporates a philosophy of errorless learning in the tutoring processes of
their literacy programs, so the researcher incorporated modifications to ensure errorless learning
within the dialogic reading process.
The second modification related to the scaffolded expansion of the child’s response. The
researcher discussed scaffolding to the expanded response to accommodate children with a range
of non-verbal and verbal responses. The third modification to the PEER sequence occurred
during the repeat step. The researcher directed the participants to explicitly ask the child to repeat
the expanded response and to provide positive reinforcement and specific feedback to the child.
The researcher incorporated this modification based on Mayer’s (2011) feedback principle: that
people learn better when provided with explanative feedback on their performance. Participants
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 84
had an opportunity to practice reading a few pages of a picture book and using the modified
PEER sequence with a partner. The researcher provided feedback to each pair of participants as
they practiced the PEER sequence.
After discussing the PEER sequence, participants learned about different types of
prompts for use during dialogic reading. The researcher described the five basic prompts used in
the traditional dialogic reading method: completion, recall, open-ended, wh- questions, and
distancing (Whitehurst et al., 1988). The researcher noted that completion prompts were
appropriate for rhyming and repetitive texts. For completion prompts, the parent read several
lines of text omitting a word and prompted the child to supply the omitted word. During the
training, the group discussed modifications to recall prompts to enable scaffolding the difficulty
of the prompt according to the skill level of the child. The researcher directed parents to
gradually lengthen the number of pages in between the events that occurred in the text and the
recall prompts. The group discussed strategies for scaffolding open-ended questions, noting that
open-ended questions based on pictures would be more concrete, and therefore easier for
children to answer than open-ended questions based only on the text. The researcher briefly
reviewed examples of wh (who, what, when, where, why, and how) question prompts, noting
that who, what, when and where questions were typically less challenging than why and how
questions. Finally, the group discussed the use of distancing questions, designed to help the child
make real life and personal connections to the text. The researcher cautioned parents to use
distancing questions judiciously, reserving the questions for times when a personal connection
would enhance the child’s comprehension of the text, instead of taking the child’s focus away
from the text. In between the description of each type of dialogic reading prompt, participants
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 85
observed a video model of a parent using the prompt with a typically developing child.
Participants then practiced using each type of prompt with a partner using sample text.
After practicing the PEER sequence and basic CROWD prompts with a partner,
participants learned about modified prompts for use with their children during dialogic reading.
Modified prompts fell into the categories of print awareness and alphabet knowledge,
comprehension and vocabulary, phonological awareness, and attention to text. For each modified
prompt, the researcher demonstrated the target parent behavior, explained the corresponding
prompt within the context of the modified PEER sequence, and described an example of a child’s
response to the parent behavior.
A characteristic of effective models is perceived similarity; the more similar observers
are to models, the greater the likelihood they will engage in similar behaviors (Bandura, 1986;
Schunk, Pintrich, & Meese, 2008). In order to gain familiarity with the standard procedures for
dialogic reading, participants observed parents of typically developing children implementing the
PEER sequence and CROWD prompts. For the modified procedures, the researcher selected
video clips showing target parent behaviors from the baseline data collection of parents from the
Together is Better organization reading to their children. Selection of the video clips provided
perceived similarity as parents were in the same peer group. The videos allowed parents to
observe the dialogic reading strategies applied to children with Down syndrome. The group then
discussed how to revise the parent language from the video so that it matched the modified
PEER sequence. Participants also discussed how to adjust the language in the prompts to make it
appropriate for children at different levels of language development. Participants practiced the
behaviors, modified PEER sequence, and modified prompts with a partner. Throughout the
practice session, the researcher circulated to listen to participants, answer questions, and provide
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 86
feedback on their use of the dialogic reading techniques. The practice session ended with a
discussion about strategies for redirecting and maintaining children’s attention to text.
At the end of the session, the researcher introduced two job-aids for participants to take
home and use to practice dialogic reading techniques. The researcher provided a library of 200
books ranging from picture books to sixth grade leveled readers for parents to check out and take
home. The books were individually labeled with dialogic reading prompts at point of use in the
text. The intent of providing prompts labeled at point of use was to potentially reduce the
cognitive load parents may experience as they practice dialogic reading techniques with their
child. The labeled prompts followed the modified PEER sequence and provided a model answer
as well as a question parents could use to prompt their child to engage with the text. The
researcher asked the parents to check out approximately two to three books per week and to read
each book multiple times with their child. After reading the book once for enjoyment, the
researcher directed parents to use selected prompts on subsequent reads of the text.
As an additional scaffold, the researcher provided a job-aid in the form of a dialogic
reading brochure. The brochure included illustrated and captioned steps for the modified PEER
sequence as well as sentence frames and question prompts parents could apply to any text. The
prompts were categorized according to print awareness/alphabet knowledge prompts,
comprehension and vocabulary prompts, phonological awareness prompts, and attention to text
prompts. The researcher asked participants to first practice with the labeled books until they were
comfortable using the modified PEER sequence, then to use the brochure to apply the sentence
frames and question prompts to other text available at home. The researcher directed participants
to use the job-aids until the modified PEER sequence and dialogic reading prompts became a
natural part of their book reading practices. Participants had an opportunity to select a text of an
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 87
appropriate level to read aloud with their child and to use the prompts on the brochure to develop
text specific prompts and questions.
The session concluded with an opportunity for participants to ask questions and check out
the job-aids. Participants practiced at home over a four-week period. During the four-week
practice period, the researcher sent out weekly tips for dialogic reading to participants by e-mail.
Several parents dialogued with me by phone and e-mail to solve specific challenges they
experienced as they practiced dialogic reading techniques with their child.
Data Analysis
According to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American
Educational Research Association, 2008), changes or gains in scores from pre/post testing
require the explicit definition of scores and reports of their technical qualities. The researcher
provided the definitions and reports consistent with this standard for each quantitative measure
employed in the study. In order to measure each outcome, the researcher used the same test
forms for each occasion of measurement.
A dependent-groups t-test measures a single group of subjects studied under two
conditions, focusing on the difference in pre and posttest results (Salkind, 2011). The researcher
used dependent-groups t tests to analyze the results of pre/post gains on both the Parent Self-
Efficacy Scale for Dialogic Reading and the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-child book
reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010). The researcher conducted dependent-groups t-test to
measure change in parent self-efficacy for parent-child book reading using pre/post scores from
the self-efficacy scale. The researcher conducted dependent-groups t-test to detect change in
pre/post parent behaviors during parent-child book reading as measured by the Dialogic Reading
Inventory for Parent-child book reading. In order to examine the behaviors children exhibit
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 88
during parent-child book reading, the researcher conducted dependent-groups t-test to detect
change in pre/post child behaviors during parent-child book reading as measured by the Dialogic
Reading Inventory for Parent-child book reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010).
A correlation measures the relationship between two variables, specifically, how one
variable changes in relation to another (Salkind, 2011). In order to determine if there is a
relationship between parent self-efficacy for dialogic reading and parent-child book reading
behaviors, the researcher correlated scores for the parent self-efficacy scale with the parent
behavior scores on the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-child book reading (Dixon-Krauss
et al., 2010). To further examine the behaviors of children during parent-child book reading, the
researcher correlated scores for parent behavior on the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-
child book reading with scores for the child’s behavior to determine if there is a relationship
between parents’ reading practices and children’s reading behaviors.
The researcher employed the qualitative method of data analysis delineated by Creswell
(2003) to provide structure for a systematic and thorough analysis of the data collected from
parent interviews and the parent perception survey. The questions from the parent interviews
probed information about typical parent-child book reading practices as well as the challenges
parents face when reading at home with their child. The questions from the parent perception
survey determined how parents felt their participation in the intervention affected their self-
efficacy and their practices during parent-child book reading. The researcher organized the data
via transcription and typing field notes, then conducted a cross case analysis (Patton, 2002) to
group participant responses by questions. The researcher then sorted the notes and results from
each interview and survey question into the categories of information and conducted a content
analysis of the meaning of the data to allow for holistic reflection and the emergence of common
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 89
themes. The researcher categorized and labeled the information according to the actual language
of the participants.
Summary
In summary, the researcher conducted a non-randomized correlational study of a dialogic
reading intervention for parents of children with Down syndrome. The purpose of the study was
to (a) determine whether participation in the intervention relates to parents’ self-efficacy for
reading with their children; (b) determine whether participation in the intervention relates to
parents’ practice when reading with their children; (c) examine the relationship between parent
self-efficacy for dialogic reading and parent-child book reading practices; and (d) describe the
observable behaviors of children with Down syndrome during parent-child book reading. The
researcher conducted the study with the intent of making logical generalizations about the
effectiveness of the intervention in influencing parent self-efficacy for parent-child book reading,
enhancing parent dialogic reading practices, and influencing children’s reading behaviors
through parent practices to other populations of parents of children with intellectual disabilities.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 90
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
This chapter presents the statistical outcomes for the previously presented research
questions:
1. Is there a difference in pre/post parent self-efficacy scales after participation
in an intervention designed to teach parents of children with Down syndrome
dialogic reading strategies?
2. How do parent behaviors change during parent-child book reading after
participation in an intervention designed to teach parents of children with Down
syndrome dialogic reading strategies?
3. Is there a relationship between self-efficacy for dialogic reading and
practices during parent-child book reading for parents of children with Down
syndrome?
4. What are the observable behaviors of children with Down syndrome during
parent-child book reading?
Intercorrelations
Table 6 provides intercorrelations for parent self-efficacy, parent behaviors, and child
behaviors exhibited pre and post intervention. The researcher used the Parent Self-Efficacy Scale
for Dialogic Reading to measure parent self-efficacy (See Appendix A). The survey incorporates
a 10-point Likert scale with 10 representing the highest level of efficacy. The researcher
measured parent and child behaviors using the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-Child
Book Reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010) (See Appendix B).

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 91
Table 6
Pearson Product Correlations for Pre and Post Intervention Parent Self-Efficacy, Parent
Behavior, and Child Behavior Composite Scores
Pre Intervention Composite Scores Post Intervention Composite Scores
PSE PB CB PSE PB CB
Pre PSE 1 .19 .35 .81** .48** .40*
Pre PB .19 1 .55** .29 .44* .07
Pre CB .35 .55** 1 .56** .45* .28
Post PSE .81** .29 .56** 1 .44* .42*
Post PB .48** .44* .45* .44* 1 .72**
Post CB .40* .07 .28 .42* .72** 1
Note. PSE = parent self-efficacy; PB = parent behavior; CB = child behavior.
n=28
*p<.05, two-tailed. **p<.01, two-tailed.

The researcher computed a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient to assess the
relationship between each set of variables and noted significant correlations, p<.05, for the
following:
• Pre parent behavior and pre child behavior.
• Pre parent self-efficacy and post parent self-efficacy.
• Pre parent behavior and post parent behavior.
• Post parent self-efficacy and post parent behavior.
• Post parent behavior and post child behavior.
• Post parent self-efficacy and post child behavior.
• Pre parent self-efficacy and post parent behavior.
• Pre parent self-efficacy and post child behavior.
A positive correlation between pre parent behavior scores and pre child behavior scores
exists, r = 0.55, n = 28, p<.01, indicating a relationship between the two variables. Parents’
behaviors prior to participating in the dialogic reading intervention correlated to the behaviors
their children exhibited prior to the intervention.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 92
There was an association between pre parent self-efficacy scores and post parent self-
efficacy survey scores, revealing that parents’ self-efficacy scores prior to participating in the
dialogic reading intervention served as reliable predictors of their self-efficacy scores after
participating in the intervention, r = 0.81, n = 28, p<.01.
A positive correlation between pre parent behavior scores and post parent behavior scores
exists, r = 0.44, n = 28, p<.05, indicating a relationship between the variables. Parents’ behaviors
prior to participating in the dialogic reading intervention correlated to the behaviors they
exhibited after participating in the intervention.
There was an association between post parent self-efficacy survey scores and post parent
behavior scores, revealing that after participation in the intervention, parents self-efficacy
predicted the behaviors they exhibited during dialogic reading interactions with their children, r
= 0.44, n = 28, p<.05.
A positive correlation between post parent behavior scores and post child behavior scores
exists, r = 0.72, n = 28, p<.01, indicating a relationship between the variables. After participating
in the intervention, parents’ behaviors reliably predicted their children’s behaviors when engaged
in dialogic reading.
There was an association between post parent self-efficacy survey scores and post child
behavior scores, revealing that parents’ self-efficacy related to their children’s behaviors after
participation in the dialogic reading intervention, r = 0.42, n = 28, p<.05.
A few additional correlations serve as points of interest. Pre parent self-efficacy predicted
both post parent behavior scores, r = 0.48, n = 28, p<.01 and post child behavior scores, r = 0.40,
n = 28, p<.05. A relationship exists between both sets of variables. Parent self-efficacy prior to
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 93
participating in the intervention related to the behaviors both parents and children exhibited
during dialogic reading after participating in the intervention.
Research Question 1: Is there a difference in pre/post parent self-efficacy scales after
participation in an intervention designed to teach parents of children with Down syndrome
dialogic reading strategies?
Results for Parent Self-Efficacy Pre and Post Participation in the Dialogic Reading
Intervention
To answer research question one, the researcher conducted a dependent groups t-test on
scores obtained from the Parent Self-Efficacy Scale for Dialogic Reading before and after
subject participation in the dialogic reading intervention. The researcher examined pre and post
composite scores, as well as scores disaggregated by the survey subcategories: print
awareness/alphabet knowledge, support comprehension/vocabulary, phonological awareness,
and attention to text. Qualitative data from two sources, one question from parent interviews and
one question from the Parent Perception Survey, supplements the quantitative data collected to
answer research question one. The researcher used cross-case analysis and content analysis to
examine results from both sources of qualitative data. Using a standardized format, the
researcher conducted interviews prior to parent participation in the dialogic reading intervention
to provide insight into challenges parents face when reading at home with their child. Some
parent responses to this question provided understanding into parent self-efficacy for parent-
child book reading. One question on the Parent Perception Survey administered at the end of the
study allowed parents to describe how their self-efficacy for engaging in dialogic reading had
changed over the course of the intervention.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 94
Results from dependent groups t tests for parent self-efficacy pre and post
participation in the dialogic reading intervention.
Table 7
T Test for Parent Self-Efficacy Survey Scores Pre and Post Participation
Paired Samples t df p
Pre-post parent self-efficacy survey composite score -3.15 27 .004
Pre-post parent self-efficacy survey subcategory score:
PAAK
-2.14 27 .042
Pre-post parent self-efficacy survey subcategory score:
SCV
-3.43 27 .002
Note. PAAK = print awareness/alphabet knowledge; SCV = support comprehension/ vocabulary.
n=28

Table 8
Mean and Standard Deviation for Parent Self-Efficacy Survey Scores Pre and Post Participation
Dependent Variables M SD
Pre parent self-efficacy survey composite score 128.57 37.94
Post parent self-efficacy survey composite score 142.29 25.16
Pre parent self-efficacy survey subcategory score: PAAK 23.36 7.72
Post parent self-efficacy survey subcategory score: PAAK 25.35 5.85
Pre parent self-efficacy survey subcategory score: SCV 43.18 15.16
Post parent self-efficacy survey subcategory score: SCV 49.67 11.64
Note. PAAK = print awareness/alphabet knowledge; SCV = support comprehension/ vocabulary.
n=28
The researcher conducted a paired-samples t-test to compare the composite score on the
Parent Self-Efficacy Scale for Dialogic Reading in pre and post intervention conditions. As
shown in Table 8, there was a significant difference in the pre intervention composite scores
(M=128.57 SD=37.94) and the post intervention composite scores (M=142.29, SD=25.16) for
parent self-efficacy; t(27)=-3.15, p=.004 (Table 7). These results suggest that the composite pre
intervention parent self-efficacy survey scores did increase significantly after parent participation
in the dialogic reading intervention.
After disaggregating the data, the researcher compared the print awareness/alphabet
knowledge subcategory score on the Parent Self-Efficacy Scale for Dialogic Reading in pre and
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 95
post intervention conditions using a paired-samples t-test and found a significant difference in
the pre intervention (M=23.36, SD=7.72) and post intervention (M=25.35, SD=5.85) scores;
t(27)=-2.14, p=.042. These results suggest that the parent self-efficacy scores in the subcategory
of print awareness/alphabet knowledge increased significantly after parent participation in the
dialogic reading intervention.
Using a paired-samples t-test, the researcher compared the support
comprehension/vocabulary subcategory score on the Parent Self-Efficacy Scale for Dialogic
Reading in pre and post intervention conditions. The researcher noted a significant difference in
the scores for pre intervention (M=43.18, SD=15.16) and post intervention (M=49.67, SD=11.64)
support scores; t(27)=-3.43, p=.002. These results suggest that parent self-efficacy scores in the
subcategory of support comprehension/vocabulary did increase significantly after parent
participation in the dialogic reading intervention. When comparing scores for phonological
awareness and attention to text in pre and post intervention conditions, the researcher did not find
a significant difference between the pre and post intervention scores for either subcategory.
Qualitative results from parent interviews and the Parent Perception Survey for
parent self-efficacy. Qualitative data collected from parent interviews provides additional
insight into parents’ self-efficacy for parent-child book reading prior to participation in the
dialogic reading intervention. During the interview, the researcher asked the parents to specify
the challenges they faced when reading at home with their child. Of the 12 parents interviewed,
11 reported experiencing challenges related to reading with their child. Of the 11 reporting
challenges, three responses indicated low self-efficacy for parent-child book reading, with all
three respondents identifying their ability to get their child to attend to the text and motivate their
child to stay engaged throughout the book reading experience as specific areas of challenge. Two
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 96
of the three respondents also noted that they lacked strategies and confidence for helping their
child comprehend the text.
Parent Two summed up her challenges with helping her child attend to and comprehend
text as follows:
“I can't get him to answer questions as easy as yes or no. It’s difficult to gauge his
comprehension. Its really hard to read when its often very one sided, me giving, and not
knowing if, what and how much he is taking in. I often lose interest and heart: it becomes
a chore. I know I should, but it is not fun. Also, he rarely picks up books to read on his
own. Sometimes he does and he skims his fingers over the sentences super fast and I
know he is not reading or comprehending what he skims over. It’s just a stimming
behavior. I don't think he is very interested in books. At the Together is Better Literacy
program, we tried to use his iPad to ask and compose questions and answers. The set up
for each book is laborious and it becomes a chore. Reading is not fun with him its always
about teaching, teaching, teaching and not about enjoyment. I think the feeling for him
might be mutual! I am very excited to learn how to engage more with him through
reading. It is just the skill I need. To be absolutely honest, I don't enjoy reading with him
and I feel awful about it.”
While noting a clear desire to engage with her child during book reading and support his
enjoyment of reading and comprehension, Parent Two expressed a lack of self-efficacy
accompanied by feelings of guilt at her perceived inability to make reading a pleasant experience
for herself and her child. She points specifically to reading comprehension, enjoyment, and
attention to text as areas of challenge for her child and notes her lack of strategies to effectively
facilitate the parent-child book reading process. Her child’s lack of response to her previous
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 97
attempts to engage him with the text seem to have lowered her self-efficacy to do so during
future book reading attempts.
Qualitative data collected from the Parent Perception Survey, administered after the
dialogic reading intervention, reveals additional information to support quantitative results. Of
the 28 parent participants in the study, 25 responded to the Parent Perception Survey. The first
question on the survey provides clues to changes in self-efficacy after participation in the
dialogic reading intervention (How do you feel your participation in the dialogic reading
intervention affected your self-efficacy for performing dialogic reading behaviors while reading
with your child?).
All parents who completed the survey indicated participating in the intervention
improved their self-efficacy for performing dialogic reading behaviors during parent-child book
reading. Several themes emerged from the responses regarding specific behaviors for which
participants experienced a positive change in their self-efficacy. Participants reported improved
self-efficacy: (a) with the application of new dialogic reading tools and strategies; (b) for
building their child’s comprehension during parent-child book reading; (c) through improved
consciousness of what to do, what strategies to apply, and where to focus efforts during parent-
child book reading; (d) for interacting with their child; and (e) through affirmation of previously
applied practices.
Ten of 25 respondents to the survey reported that their self-efficacy for employing
dialogic reading practices improved as a result of applying the new dialogic reading tools and
strategies learned during the intervention. Several respondents claimed they were previously
unsure of what to do to interact with their child during parent-child book reading, and that the
strategies learned and the tools used during the intervention resulted in improved confidence for
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 98
engaging their child with the text. Parent 18 responded, “I feel more confident helping my child
learn to read now, especially since I am better equipped to help her using the modified PEER
sequence and the tools we are learning here.” Parent Seven noted, “it helped tremendously, I did
not have any idea and now I can build on the skills that I was taught.”
Seven parents reported improved self-efficacy for developing their child’s
comprehension during parent-child book reading interactions. Of these, several noted the
importance of frequent questioning and the improved motivation of their children in terms of
responding when they supplied a model answer prior to prompting the child with the question.
Parent 14 noted her self-efficacy was “much improved in helping my daughter pull information
from story. This was good to help me read more to her and with more increased skill.” Parent 18
shared “it was helpful to be reminded to slow down on just reading and ask questions and help
with clarification.”
Three parents reported their self-efficacy for interacting with their child during parent-
child book reading improved significantly after participating in the dialogic reading intervention.
These were the same parents who reported challenges with engagement and sustaining attention
to text during the parent interview prior to the intervention. Parent 13 specifically noted the
benefit of observing peers through video modeling during the intervention:
Seeing other people read to their children kind of opened my eyes to how deadpan I am
when I read. Participating in this study increased my confidence and has prompted me to
make changes in how I interact with my child when I read.
Three participants reported that participating in the dialogic reading intervention
reaffirmed their previous practice, thus building their self-efficacy. These parents had been
employing various forms of prompting and questioning techniques when reading with their child
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 99
and their participation in the training reminded them of the benefits of applying the strategies.
All three parents reported feeling encouraged to continue with the application of the practices.
Parent Five shared, “it helped reassure me that many of the behaviors and tasks I focus on with
my daughter during story time are helping her develop critical thinking skills.” Parent Four
noted, “I feel like this gave me a kick to revisit techniques that I know have worked in the past as
well as to try some new ideas.”
Research Question 2: How do parent behaviors change during parent-child book reading
after participation in an intervention designed to teach parents of children with Down
syndrome dialogic reading strategies?
Results for Parent Behaviors Pre and Post Participation in the Dialogic Reading
Intervention
To answer research question two, the researcher conducted a dependent groups t-test on
scores obtained from the parent behavior section of the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-
Child Book Reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010) before and after subject participation in the
dialogic reading intervention. The researcher examined pre and post composite scores, as well as
scores disaggregated by the inventory subcategories: print awareness/alphabet knowledge,
support comprehension/vocabulary, phonological awareness, and attention to text.
Qualitative data from two sources, three questions from parent interviews and one
question from the Parent Perception Survey, supplements the quantitative data collected to
answer research question two. An interview the researcher conducted prior to parent
participation in the dialogic reading intervention provided insight into (a) strategies parents use
to engage their child with the text, (b) strategies parents use to help their child understand the
text, and (c) strategies parents use to help their child attend to sounds and words in the text. One
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 100
question on the Parent Perception Survey administered at the end of the study prompted parents
to explain how they felt their participation in the dialogic reading intervention affected the
practices they employed when reading with their child.
Results from dependent groups t tests for parent behaviors pre and post
participation in the dialogic reading intervention.
Table 9
T Test Pre and Post Parent Behaviors on the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-Child Book
Reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010)

Paired Samples t df p
Pre-post parent behavior composite score -12.65 27 .000
Pre-post parent behavior subcategory score: PAAK -11.93 27 .000
Pre-post parent behavior subcategory score: SCV -6.17 27 .000
Pre-post parent behavior subcategory score: PA -3.22 27 .003
Pre-post parent behavior subcategory score: AT -5.53 27 .000
Note. PAAK = print awareness/alphabet knowledge; SCV = support comprehension/vocabulary;
PA = phonological awareness; AT = attention to text.
n=28

Table 10
Mean and Standard Deviation for Pre and Post Parent Behaviors on the Dialogic Reading
Inventory for Parent-Child Book Reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010)

Dependent Variables M SD
Pre parent behavior composite score 11.78 5.15
Post parent behavior composite score 30.55 8.58
Pre parent behavior subcategory score: PAAK 1.97 4.06
Post parent behavior subcategory score: PAAK 15.79 6.06
Pre parent behavior subcategory score: SCV 4.88 2.184
Post parent behavior subcategory score: SCV 7.46 2.01
Pre parent behavior subcategory score: PA .04 .19
Post parent behavior subcategory score: PA .77 1.16
Pre parent behavior subcategory score: AT 4.90 1.45
Post parent behavior subcategory score: AT 6.54 .83
Note. PAAK = print awareness/alphabet knowledge; SCV = support comprehension/vocabulary;
PA = phonological awareness; AT = attention to text.
n=28

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 101
The researcher conducted a paired-samples t-test to compare the composite score for the
parent behaviors measured by the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-Child Book Reading
(Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010) in pre and post intervention conditions. As shown in Table 10,
results revealed a significant difference in the pre intervention composite scores (M=11.78
SD=5.15) and the post intervention composite scores (M=30.55, SD=8.58) for parent behaviors;
t(27)= -12.65, p=.000 (Table 9). These results suggest that the composite parent behavior scores
increased significantly after parent participation in the dialogic reading intervention.
Using a paired-samples t-test, the researcher compared the print awareness/alphabet
knowledge subcategory score for the parent behaviors measured by the Dialogic Reading
Inventory for Parent-Child Book Reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010) in pre and post
intervention conditions. The researcher noted a significant difference in the pre intervention
(M=1.97, SD=4.06) and the post intervention subcategory scores (M=15.79, SD=6.06) for parent
behaviors; t(27)=-11.93, p=.000. These results suggest that the parent behavior scores in the print
awareness/alphabet knowledge subcategory increased significantly after parent participation in
the dialogic reading intervention.
The researcher used a paired-samples t-test to compare the support
comprehension/vocabulary subcategory score for the parent behaviors measured by the Dialogic
Reading Inventory for Parent-Child Book Reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010) in pre and post
intervention conditions. The researcher found a significant difference in the pre intervention
(M=4.88, SD=2.18) and the post intervention subcategory scores (M=7.46, SD=2.01) for parent
behaviors; t(27)=-6.17, p=.000. These results suggest that the parent behavior scores in the
support comprehension/vocabulary subcategory did increase significantly after parent
participation in the dialogic reading intervention.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 102
The researcher conducted a paired-samples t-test to compare the phonological awareness
subcategory score for the parent behaviors measured by the Dialogic Reading Inventory for
Parent-Child Book Reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010) in pre and post intervention conditions.
The researcher found a significant difference in the pre intervention (M=.04, SD=.19) and the
post intervention subcategory scores (M=.77, SD=1.16) for parent behaviors; t(27)=-3.22,
p=.003. Parent behavior scores in the phonological awareness subcategory increased
significantly after parent participation in the dialogic reading intervention.
When comparing the attention to text subcategory score for the parent behaviors
measured by the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-Child Book Reading (Dixon-Krauss et
al., 2010) in pre and post intervention conditions using a paired-samples t-test, the researcher
uncovered a significant difference in the pre intervention attention to text subcategory scores
(M=4.90, SD=1.45) and the post intervention attention to text subcategory scores (M=6.54,
SD=.83) for parent behaviors; t(27)=-5.53, p=.000. These results suggest that parent behavior
scores in the attention to text subcategory did increase significantly after parent participation in
the dialogic reading intervention.
Table 11
T Test Pre and Post Parent Behavior using the PEER Sequence

Paired Samples t df p
Pre-post parent behavior using the PEER Sequence -9.41 27 .000
n=28
Table 12
Mean and Standard Deviation for Pre and Post Parent Behavior using the PEER Sequence

Dependent Variables M SD
Pre parent behavior using the PEER sequence .00 .00
Post parent behavior using the PEER sequence 10.46 5.89
n=28

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 103
As shown in Table 12, the researcher used a paired-samples t-test to compare parents’ use
of the PEER sequence in pre and post intervention conditions and found a significant difference
in the pre intervention (M=.00, SD=.00) and the post intervention (M=10.46, SD=5.89) scores;
t(27)=-9.410, p=.000 (Table 11). These results suggest that parents’ use of the PEER sequence
did increase significantly after parent participation in the dialogic reading intervention.
Qualitative results from parent interviews and the Parent Perception Survey for
parent behaviors. Qualitative data collected from parent interviews conducted prior to the
intervention provides some additional insight into parent behaviors during parent-child book
reading. The interview questions required parents to describe the strategies they used to (a)
engage their child with the text, (b) help their child understand the text, and (c) help their child
attend to sounds, letters, and words in the text.
All twelve parents interviewed reported using some types of strategies to engage their
child with the text, and most reported the use of multiple strategies. Several themes emerged
about the nature of the strategies parents employed prior to participation in the intervention. Six
parents noted allowing their child to select the book served as an effective strategy for improving
their engagement with text. Six parents also identified some aspect of fluency, such as speed,
using an animated voice, and fluctuating the volume of their voice as an effective strategy to
keep their child entertained and on task during parent-child book reading. Five parents noted
some form of comprehension strategies as a way to maintain engagement with the text, including
referencing pictures, relating the text to real life, and asking questions. Two parents described
using some form of technology, specifically audiobooks and stories read on the iPad, as effective
means for engaging their child with the text.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 104
When asked about the strategies they used to help their child understand the text during
parent-child book reading, 11 out of 12 respondents reported using some form of comprehension
strategy. The two most prevalent strategies employed by the group were discussing the pictures
(reported by five parents) and modifying the text by simplifying vocabulary and sentence
structure (also reported by five parents). Three parents reported asking their child questions
during reading. Providing explanations of the events in the text, acting out parts of the story, and
relating the story to real life were strategies reported by two parents. One parent mentioned the
strategies of rereading the text and asking the child to recall information from the text.
Only seven out of 12 respondents reported using strategies to help the child attend to
sounds and words in the text. Two of the participants interpreted the question to mean using
sound effects when reading rather than focusing on specific phonetic sounds. Three participants
noted they asked their child to repeat words from the text. Two more noted that they read slowly
and had their child look at their mouth as they pronounced words and sounds.
Qualitative data collected from the Parent Perception Survey, administered after the
dialogic reading intervention, reveals additional insight into the quantitative results for research
question two. Of the 28 parent participants in the study, 25 responded to the Parent Perception
Survey. The second question on the survey provides clues to changes in parent behavior after
participation in the dialogic reading intervention: How do you feel your participation in the
dialogic reading intervention affected your practices when reading with your child?
All respondents to the Parent Perception Survey indicated a positive change in their
behaviors during parent-child book reading after participating in the dialogic reading
intervention. Several themes emerged from participant responses. A total of eight parents
reported a greater consciousness of the goals, purpose, and focus for parent-child book reading
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 105
that impacted the practices they applied during the process. Parent One noted that participation in
the intervention, “made me more aware and conscious of the process overall. I feel it is more
productive now.” Parent Four shared, “this made me more conscious of the strategies I need to
use to improve on his goals.”
Another theme that emerged from parent responses regarding their practices during
parent-child book reading was the increased use of comprehension strategies overall and
questioning in particular. Parent 12 reported, “I know how to make open questions and let her
respond even if she can’t say the word.” Parent 14 expressed, “I am able to and more aware of
ideas to help her understand the story and to pull out more information.”
As a result of participating in the intervention, six parents reported increased usage of
strategies to engage their child with the text during parent-child book reading. Parent 24 reported
that using the dialogic reading strategies increased her engagement as well as her son’s during
reading, “I think it helped a lot. Instead of being a passive reader, I look for ways for both my
son and I to be more engaged in the story.” Parent 10 reported that he was more purposeful in
using strategies to engage his daughter, “They made me more mindful of ways to help my
daughter be more engaged with the story, which is very important in increasing her reading
comprehension.”
An increase in the frequency of parent-child book reading also emerged as a theme across
responses. Four parents noted that they read more frequently with their children after
participating in the dialogic reading intervention. Specifically, Parent Two shared, “I wish there
were labels on all our books at home! It made reading with him easier and it motivates me to
read more often when it is easier.” Parent 21 noted, “I do it everyday now! I love it. My daughter
is now understanding the different stories.”
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 106
Another theme that emerged from the responses related to an increased insight into the
child’s thinking, which in turn affected the strategies parents selected and the behaviors they
employed during parent-child book reading. Parent 13 noted, “I feel that it improved our reading
sessions. I have been able to see more what’s going on in her thoughts as I’ve slowed down and
used the prompts to engage her attention.” Parent 20 shared, “I am better at asking questions to
find out what he understands instead of just explaining.”
A final theme noted across four participant responses related to an adjusted reading pace,
with parents focusing on reading the same book multiple times at a slower pace to allow more in
depth discussion of the text. Prior to the intervention, these parents reported reading three to five
books within a 15-20 minute reading session. Upon further questioning, their responses revealed
that they were rushing through multiple texts in an effort to keep their child engaged and often to
fulfill a homework requirement of reading for a predetermined amount of time each evening.
Parent Six describes the change in her behavior, “it has made reading more of an event for us.
Before, we would rush through four or five books in 20 minutes. Now we take our time with just
one, over multiple days, to discuss the book more in depth.”
Research Question 3: Is there a relationship between self-efficacy for dialogic reading and
practices during parent-child book reading for parents of children with Down syndrome?
To answer research question three, a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient
assessed the relationship between parent self-efficacy for dialogic reading and parent behaviors
exhibited during parent-child book reading interactions. The researcher examined correlations
between the variables prior to parent participating in the intervention and after parent
participation in the intervention. The researcher explored the relationship for composite scores
and subcategory scores for both the Parent Self-Efficacy Scale for Dialogic Reading and the
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 107
parent behavior section of the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-Child Book Reading
(Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010).
Results for Relationship between Parent Self-Efficacy and Parent Behaviors: Pre
Intervention
No significant relationship existed for pre intervention composite scores for parent self-
efficacy and parent behaviors. When examined by subcategory, only the support
comprehension/vocabulary subcategory demonstrated a significant relationship between pre
intervention parent self-efficacy scores and pre intervention parent behavior scores.
The researcher computed a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient to assess the
relationship between pre intervention parent self-efficacy survey scores for the support
comprehension/vocabulary subcategory and pre intervention parent behavior scores for the
support comprehension/vocabulary subcategory as measured by the Dialogic Reading Inventory
for Parent-Child Book Reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010). There was a positive correlation
between the two variables, r = 0.61, n = 28, p<.01. Overall, there was a relationship between pre
intervention parent self-efficacy survey scores and pre intervention parent behavior scores in the
subcategory of support comprehension/vocabulary. Prior to participating in the intervention,
parents’ self-efficacy for supporting the comprehension and vocabulary development of their
children correlated with the behaviors parents exhibited during parent-child book reading.
Results for Relationship between Parent Self-Efficacy and Parent Behaviors: Post
Intervention
Results from Pearson product moment correlation for parent self-efficacy and
parent behaviors post intervention. The researcher assessed the relationship between post
intervention parent self-efficacy survey composite scores and post intervention parent behavior
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 108
composite scores as measured by the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-Child Book Reading
(Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010) using a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a
positive correlation between the two variables, r = 0.44, n = 28, p<.05. Overall, there was a
relationship between post intervention parent self-efficacy survey composite scores and post
intervention parent behavior scores. After participating in the dialogic reading intervention,
parents’ self-efficacy for incorporating dialogic reading strategies correlated with the behaviors
they exhibited while engaged in dialogic reading.
Table 13
Pearson Product Correlations for Post Intervention Parent Self-Efficacy and Behavior
Subcategory Scores
Post Intervention Scores
Self-Efficacy Survey Parent Behaviors
PAAK SCV PA AT PAAK SCV PA AT
Self-Efficacy
Survey
PAAK
1

.61** .76** .37 .44* .54** .25 .16
Self-Efficacy
Survey SCV
.61** 1 .67** .57** .29 .51** .15 .03
Self-Efficacy
Survey PA
.76** .67** 1 .23 .30 .47* .25 .00
Self-Efficacy
Survey AT
.37 .57** .23 1 .25 .34 -.01 -.05
Parent
Behavior
PAAK
.44* .29 .30 .25 1 .64** .41* .59**
Parent
Behavior
SCV
.54** .51** .47* .34 .64** 1 .25 .58**
Parent
Behavior PA
.25 .15 .35 -.01 .41* .25 1 .20
Parent
Behavior AT
.16 .03 .00 -.05 .59** .58** .20 1
Note. PAAK = print awareness/alphabet knowledge; SCV = support comprehension/vocabulary;
PA = phonological awareness; AT = attention to text.
n=28
*p<.05, two-tailed. **p<.01, two-tailed.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 109
The researcher calculated a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient to assess the
relationship between self-efficacy and parent behavior in each of four subcategories: print
awareness/alphabet knowledge, support comprehension/vocabulary, phonological awareness,
and attention to text. Two subcategories, print awareness/alphabet knowledge and support
comprehension/vocabulary demonstrated significant relationships. Significant relationships did
not exist between self-efficacy and demonstration of behavior during dialogic reading in the
phonological awareness and attention to text subcategories.
A positive correlation between post intervention parent self-efficacy survey scores and
post intervention parent behavior scores in the subcategory of print awareness/alphabet
knowledge exists, r = 0.44, n = 28, p<.05, indicating a relationship between the variables. After
participation in the intervention, parents’ self-efficacy for engaging their children with print
awareness and alphabet knowledge prompts related to their demonstration of such behaviors
during dialogic reading.
There was an association between post parent self-efficacy survey scores and post
intervention parent behavior scores in the subcategory of support comprehension/vocabulary,
revealing that parents’ self-efficacy related to their behaviors after participating in the dialogic
reading intervention, r = 0.51, n = 28, p<.01.
Research Question 4: What are the observable behaviors of children with Down syndrome
during parent-child book reading?
Results for Child Behaviors Pre and Post Parent Participation in the Dialogic Reading
Intervention
To answer research question four, †he researcher conducted a dependent groups t-test on
scores obtained from the child behavior section of the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 110
Child Book Reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010) before and after parent participation in the
dialogic reading intervention. The researcher examined pre and post composite scores, as well as
scores disaggregated by the inventory subcategories: print awareness/alphabet knowledge,
support comprehension/vocabulary, phonological awareness, and attention to text. The
researcher assessed the relationship between parent behaviors and child behaviors exhibited
during parent-child book reading interactions as measured by the Dialogic Reading Inventory for
Parent-Child Book Reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010) using a Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficient for both composite scores and subcategory scores.
Qualitative data from two sources, two questions from parent interviews and one question
from the Parent Perception Survey, supplements the quantitative data collected to answer
research question four. An interview conducted prior to parent participation in the dialogic
reading intervention revealed insight into (a) what parents considered to be a successful reading
experience with their child, and (b) challenges parents face when reading with their child. One
question on the Parent Perception Survey administered at the end of the study allowed parents to
explain how they felt their participation in the dialogic reading intervention affected their child’s
behaviors during parent/child book reading.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 111
Results from dependent groups t tests for child behaviors pre and post parent
participation in the dialogic reading intervention.
Table 14
T Test Pre and Post Child Behaviors on the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-Child Book
Reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010)

Paired Samples t df p
Pre-post child behavior composite score -7.45 27 .000
Pre-post child behavior subcategory score: PAAK -4.90 27 .000
Pre-post child behavior subcategory score: SCV -7.35 27 .000
Pre-post child behavior subcategory score: PA -2.66 27 .013
Pre-post child behavior subcategory score: AT -3.28 27 .003
Note. PAAK = print awareness/alphabet knowledge; SCV = support comprehension/vocabulary;
PA = phonological awareness; AT = attention to text.
n=28

Table 15
Mean and Standard Deviation for Pre and Post Child Behaviors on the Dialogic Reading
Inventory for Parent-Child Book Reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010)

Dependent Variables M SD
Pre child behavior composite score 8.93 3.09
Post child behavior composite score 16.31 5.17
Pre child behavior subcategory score: PAAK .26 .58
Post child behavior subcategory score: PAAK 2.52 2.49
Pre child behavior subcategory score: SCV 3.72 2.16
Post child behavior subcategory score: SCV 7.00 2.45
Pre child behavior subcategory score: PA .11 .42
Post child behavior subcategory score: PA .69 1.05
Pre child behavior subcategory score: AT 4.85 1.60
Post child behavior subcategory score: AT 6.14 1.48
Note. PAAK = print awareness/alphabet knowledge; SCV = support comprehension/vocabulary;
PA = phonological awareness; AT = attention to text.
n=28
The researcher conducted a paired-samples t-test to compare the composite score for the
child behaviors measured by the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-Child Book Reading
(Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010) in pre and post intervention conditions. As shown in Table 15, the
researcher found a significant difference in the pre intervention (M=8.93, SD=3.09) and the post
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 112
intervention composite scores (M=16.31, SD=5.17) for child behaviors; t(27)= -7.45, p=.000
(Table 14). These results suggest that the composite pre intervention child behavior scores did
increase significantly after parent participation in the dialogic reading intervention.
The researcher compared the print awareness/alphabet knowledge subcategory score for
the child behaviors measured by the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-Child Book Reading
(Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010) in pre and post intervention conditions using a paired-samples t-test.
The researcher discovered a significant difference in the pre intervention (M=.26, SD=.58) and
the post intervention (M=2.52, SD=2.49) scores for child behaviors in the subcategory of print
awareness/alphabet knowledge; t(27)=-4.90, p=.000. These results suggest children
demonstrated increased behaviors with regard to print awareness and alphabet knowledge after
their parents’ participation in the dialogic reading intervention.
The researcher used a paired-samples t-test was to compare the support
comprehension/vocabulary subcategory score for the child behaviors measured by the Dialogic
Reading Inventory for Parent-Child Book Reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010) in pre and post
intervention conditions and found a significant difference in the pre intervention (M=3.72,
SD=2.16) and the post intervention (M=7.00, SD=2.45) scores; t(27)=-7.35, p=.000. These
results suggest that child behaviors with regard to comprehension and vocabulary increased
significantly after parent participation in the dialogic reading intervention.
The researcher compared the phonological awareness subcategory score for the child
behaviors measured by the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-Child Book Reading (Dixon-
Krauss et al., 2010) in pre and post intervention conditions using a paired-samples t-test. The
researcher noted a significant difference in the pre intervention (M=.11, SD=.42) and the post
intervention (M=.69, SD=1.05) scores for child behaviors in the subcategory of phonological
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 113
awareness; t(27)=-2.66, p=.013. These results suggest that the children’s behaviors related to
phonological awareness increased significantly after parent participation in the dialogic reading
intervention.
Using a paired samples t-test, the researcher compared the attention to text subcategory
score for the child behaviors measured by the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-Child Book
Reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010) in pre and post intervention conditions. There was a
significant difference in the pre intervention (M=4.85, SD=1.60) and the post intervention
(M=6.14, SD=1.48) child behavior scores in the attention to text subcategory; t(27)=-3.28,
p=.003. These results indicate that children demonstrated increased attention to text after parent
participation in the dialogic reading intervention.
Results for Pre Intervention Correlations between Parent and Child Behaviors
The researcher computed a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient to assess the
relationship between pre intervention parent behavior composite scores and pre intervention
child behavior composite scores as measured by the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-Child
Book Reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010) and discovered a positive correlation between the two
variables, r = 0.55, n = 28, p<.01. Overall, there was a relationship between pre intervention
parent behavior composite scores and pre intervention child behavior composite scores. Prior to
participating in the dialogic reading intervention, children’s reading behaviors correlated with
those of their parents.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 114
Table 16
Pearson Product Correlations for Pre Intervention Parent and Child Behavior Subcategory
Scores
Pre Intervention Scores
Parent Behavior Child Behavior
PAAK SCV PA AT PAAK SCV PA AT
Parent
Behavior
PAAK
1 .18 -.10 -.06 .16 .43* -.13 -.06
Parent
Behavior
SCV
.18 1 .10 .10 .34 .61** -.27 .05
Parent
Behavior PA
-.10 .10 1 .29 -.09 -.16 -.05 .26
Parent
Behavior AT
-.06 .10 .29 1 .03 -.02 .14 .84**
Child
Behavior
PAAK
.16 .34 -.09 .03 1 .53** -.12 .20
Child
Behavior
SCV
.43* .61** -.16 -.02 .53** 1 -.17 .04
Child
Behavior PA
-.13 -.27 -.05 .14 -.12 -.17 1 .14
Child
Behavior AT
-.06 .05 .263 .84** .20 .04 .14 1
Note. PAAK = print awareness/alphabet knowledge; SCV = support comprehension/vocabulary;
PA = phonological awareness; AT = attention to text.
n=28
*p<.05, two-tailed. **p<.01, two-tailed.
The researcher found a correlation between parent and child behaviors pre intervention in
two subcategories: support comprehension/vocabulary and attention to text. No significant
relationships between parent and child behaviors were identified in the print awareness/alphabet
knowledge or phonological awareness subcategories prior to the intervention.
As shown in Table 16, there was a positive correlation between the two variables of
parent behavior and child behavior prior to the intervention in the support
comprehension/vocabulary subcategory, r = 0.61, n = 28, p<.01. Overall, there was a relationship
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 115
between pre intervention parent and child behavior scores with regard to support
comprehension/vocabulary. Prior to participating in the dialogic reading intervention, children’s
comprehension and vocabulary behaviors correlated with those of their parents.
The researcher found a positive correlation between the two variables of parent behavior
and child behavior prior to the intervention in the attention to text subcategory, r = 0.84, n = 28,
p<.01. The researcher discovered a relationship between pre intervention parent and child
behavior scores with regard to attention to text; children’s attention to text correlated with the
behaviors the parents exhibited to support their attention.
Results for Post Intervention Correlations between Parent and Child Behaviors
The researcher assessed the relationship between post intervention parent behavior
composite scores and post intervention child behavior composite scores as measured by the
Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-Child Book Reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010) using a
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient and uncovered a positive correlation between
the two variables, r = 0.72, n = 28, p<.01. Overall, there was a relationship between post
intervention parent behavior composite scores and post intervention child behavior composite
scores. While a positive correlation between parent and child behaviors was demonstrated both
prior to and after parent participating in the intervention, the strength of the correlation increased
after parent participation in the intervention.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 116
Table 17
Pearson Product Correlations for Post Intervention Parent and Child Behavior Subcategory
Scores
Post Intervention Scores
Parent Behavior Child Behavior
PAAK SCV PA AT PAAK SCV PA AT
Parent
Behavior
PAAK
1 .64* .41* .59** .21 .66** .39* .47*
Parent
Behavior
SCV
.64** 1 .25 .58** -.00 .94** .17 .50**
Parent
Behavior PA
.41* .25 1 .20 .42* .28 .92** .21
Parent
Behavior AT
.59** .58** .20 1 -.09 .70** .10 .68**
Child
Behavior
PAAK
.21 -.00 .42* -.09 1 .04 .54** .253
Child
Behavior
SCV
.66** .94** .28 .70** .04 1 .16 .63**
Child
Behavior PA
.39* .16 .92** .10 .54** .16 1 .21
Child
Behavior AT
.47* .50** .21 .68** .25 .63** .21 1
Note. PAAK = print awareness/alphabet knowledge; SCV = support comprehension/vocabulary;
PA = phonological awareness; AT = attention to text.
n=28
*p<.05, two-tailed. **p<.01, two-tailed.
The researcher calculated a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient to examine
the relationship between post intervention parent and child behavior scores in each subcategory
of the Dialogic Reading Inventory for Parent-Child Book Reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010). A
correlation was found in three subcategories: support comprehension/vocabulary, phonological
awareness, and attention to text. No significant relationship between parent and child behaviors
were identified in the print awareness/alphabet knowledge subcategories after to the intervention.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 117
As shown in Table 17, there was a positive correlation between the two variables of
parent behavior and child behavior after the intervention in the support
comprehension/vocabulary subcategory, r = 0.94, n = 28, p<.01. Overall, there was a relationship
between post intervention parent and child behavior scores with regard to support
comprehension/vocabulary. After participating in the dialogic reading intervention, children’s
comprehension and vocabulary behaviors correlated with the behaviors used by their parents.
While the researcher noted a relationship between the two variables prior to parent participating
in the dialogic reading intervention, r = 0.61, n = 28, p<.01, the relationship increased in strength
post intervention.
The researcher found a positive correlation between the two variables of parent behavior
and child behavior after the intervention in the phonological awareness subcategory, r = 0.92, n
= 28, p<.01. Overall, there was a relationship between post intervention parent and child
behavior scores with regard to phonological awareness. After participating in the dialogic
reading intervention, children’s phonological awareness behaviors correlated with the behaviors
used by their parents. Prior to the intervention, a significant correlation between parent and child
behavior in the subcategory of phonological awareness did not exist.
Within the attention to text subcategory, the researcher discovered a positive correlation
between the parent behavior and child behavior post intervention, r = 0.68, n = 28, p<.01.
Overall, there was a relationship between post intervention parent and child behavior scores with
regard to attention to text. After participating in the dialogic reading intervention, children’s
attention to text correlated with the behaviors the parents exhibited to help them attend to text,
however, there was a decrease in strength of the relationship from pre intervention r = 0.84, n =
28, p<.01 to post intervention conditions.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 118
The researcher computed a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient to assess the
relationship between parents’ post intervention application of the PEER sequence and post
intervention child behavior composite score as measured by the Dialogic Reading Inventory for
Parent-Child Book Reading (Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010). There was a positive correlation
between the two variables, r = 0.62, n = 28, p<.01. Overall, there was a relationship between post
intervention parent use of the PEER sequence and post intervention child behavior composite
scores. After participating in the dialogic reading intervention, children’s reading behaviors
correlated with their parents’ use of the PEER sequence.
Qualitative results from parent interviews and the Parent Perception Survey
regarding children’s behaviors. To answer research question four, the researcher supplemented
the quantitative data with qualitative data from two parent interview questions and one question
from the Parent Perception Survey. During the pre intervention interview, the researcher asked
parents (a) what they considered to a successful reading experience with their child, and (b)
challenges they face when reading with their child. On the Parent Perception Survey
administered at the end of the study, parents described how they felt their participation in the
dialogic reading intervention affected their child’s behaviors during parent/child book reading.
When asked what they considered to be a successful reading experience with their child,
all 12 of the participants interviewed reported their child’s behaviors as indicators of a successful
reading experience. Within those responses, several themes emerged. The majority of
respondents, eight out of 12, indicated that sustained attention throughout the entire text was an
indicator of a successful reading experience for their child. Half of the parents considered a
reading interaction successful if their child exhibited behaviors indicative of basic
comprehension of the text, such as asking and answering questions, commenting on the story,
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 119
and pointing to pictures. Five parents noted their child’s excitement and enjoyment were indices
of a successful reading experience. Three respondents felt the reading experience was successful
if their child asked to reread the text or to read additional books.
In terms of challenges parents reported facing when reading with their child, eight of the
12 participants reported responses indicating their child’s behavior contributed to their
challenges. Half of the respondents described their child’s difficulty attending to text as a
challenge during parent-child book reading. Three identified reading comprehension as a barrier
to a successful reading experience, while two identified their child’s lack of motivation as a
challenge.
The Parent Perception Survey provided insight into how parents believed their
participation in the dialogic reading intervention affected their child’s behaviors during
parent/child book reading. Of the 28 participants in the study, 25 responded to the question
regarding changes in their child’s behavior. The majority of parents, 20, reported positive
changes, two reported no changes, two reported mixed positive and negative changes, and one
reported negative changes.
From the 20 responses indicating positive changes in children’s behaviors, several themes
emerged. The largest number of respondents, eight, shared that their child demonstrated
increased engagement and interaction during parent-child book reading. Parent Two shared, “It
made my questions (interactions) more consistent which increased reciprocal interaction, more
pleasant time for both.” Parent One noted, “I think my daughter is more engaged when we read,
now that I have these wonderful tips.” In addition to increased engagement and interaction, five
parents also reported increased enjoyment for reading on the part of their children. Of particular
interest was the response of Parent 23 who left the initial videotaping extremely frustrated
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 120
because her child would not sit down to read at all. After applying the strategies she learned
during the dialogic reading intervention, Parent 23 noted, “My son is a more willing participant.
He has never really enjoyed being read to, so this was a great achievement.” Parent Three who
noted similar frustrations with her child’s attention to text shared, “I think he’s starting to enjoy
reading again! Well, with me anyways. He was not as into it as he had been when he was
younger, and now he’s way more cooperative during reading time!”
In addition to increased enjoyment, four parents reported improved attention to text,
which many attributed to an increased level of accountability due to the prompts they used
during dialogic reading. Parent 10 noted, “My daughter is a better listener when she knows I’m
going to be asking her questions throughout the reading time.” Parent 21 shared, “My daughter is
more calm and doesn’t just turn the pages, she waits to hear about the story now.”
Three parents reported an increase in communication with their child and increased use
of language on the part of their child. In a particularly poignant example, Parent Six shared that
the dialogic reading process allowed her to truly communicate with her son for the first time,
attributing the communication to the opportunity for joint attention provided by the book.
He loves the mom/me time so much. He knows it is our time that we are communicating.
Prior to this experience, I had a difficult time understanding what he was trying to
communicate on a day-to-day basis out in the world because his speech is very limited.
When we are focusing together on the same book, with illustrations to support his
understanding, we can actually converse. I feel like this is the first time I have actually
been able to communicate with my son. I didn’t realize he had so much to say!
Two parents reported that their child has always enjoyed reading and continued to do so
after the use of dialogic reading strategies. Two additional parents reported that their children
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 121
were initially frustrated by the interruption of the flow of the story to discuss the prompts and the
demands placed on them as a result of the added interaction. Both parents reported that the
frustrations abated as their children became used to the dialogic reading routines and practices.
One parent reported more adverse behaviors in her child as a result of using the dialogic reading
strategies in terms of avoidance and off task behaviors, noting the style of reading was more
structured than her child was accustomed to.
Summary
According to expectations, t-tests revealed an improvement in the self-efficacy composite
scores after parent participation in the dialogic reading intervention. When disaggregated, the
data revealed statistically significant differences in pre and post self-efficacy scores in the
subcategories of print awareness/alphabet knowledge and support comprehension/vocabulary.
Qualitative data from parent interviews and the Parent Perception Survey also supported the
finding that parents’ self-efficacy for performing specific dialogic reading behaviors improved
after participating in the intervention.
As predicted, the dialogic reading behaviors parents exhibited during parent-child book
reading interactions improved significantly as measured by t-tests after parent participation in the
dialogic reading intervention. When parsed by each subcategory, print awareness/alphabet
knowledge, support comprehension/vocabulary, phonological awareness, and attention to text,
parent behaviors demonstrated statistically significant improvements from pre to post
intervention conditions. Qualitative results from parent interviews and the Parent Perception
survey indicated improvements in parent behaviors with regard to parent-child book reading after
participation in the intervention.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 122
Prior to parent participation in the dialogic reading intervention, composite parent self-
efficacy scores did not correlate with parent behaviors. When disaggregated, data revealed a
correlation between self-efficacy and behaviors in only one subcategory, support
comprehension/vocabulary. In alignment with expectations, parent behaviors post intervention
significantly correlated with their self-efficacy for performing those behaviors during parent-
child book reading interactions. There was a moderate, positive correlation between composite
self-efficacy scores and composite behavior scores. When disaggregated by subcategory,
statistically significant correlations between parent self-efficacy and parent behavior were noted
for the print awareness/alphabet knowledge and support vocabulary/comprehension
subcategories.
Despite the short length of the intervention, t-tests revealed statistically significant
changes in children’s composite behaviors pre and post parent participation in the dialogic
reading intervention. When disaggregated, each subcategory, print awareness/alphabet
knowledge, support comprehension/vocabulary, phonological awareness, and attention to text,
showed statistically significant improvements in children’s behaviors post parent participation in
the dialogic reading intervention. Qualitative data from parent interviews and the Parent
Perception Survey noted positive changes in children’s reading behaviors for the majority of
children post-parent participation in the intervention.
Pre intervention conditions revealed a moderate positive correlation between composite
scores of parent and child behaviors, while post intervention conditions demonstrated a strong
positive correlation. When disaggregated, the data revealed significant correlations in two
subcategories, support comprehension and vocabulary and attention to text prior to the
intervention. After parent participation in the intervention, data revealed statistically significant
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 123
differences in three subcategories, support comprehension/vocabulary, phonological awareness,
and attention to text.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 124
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
This chapter provides a summary of the study and a discussion of the significant findings.
Implications for parents, school personnel, and supplemental programs that serve children with
Down syndrome are discussed as well as limitations and delimitations. The chapter concludes by
identifying implications for future research.
Although explicit, comprehensive, and extended reading instruction that includes
intensive repetition and practice is imperative to the literacy development of children with
intellectual disabilities, providing adequate opportunities for such instruction within the
timeframe of the traditional school day proves challenging (Allor, Champlin, Gifford, & Mathes,
2010). While many individuals with intellectual disabilities experience challenges with reading
comprehension, limited research exists to suggest effective instructional strategies specific to the
population (Morgan, Moni, & Jobling, 2004). Dialogic reading may benefit children with
intellectual disabilities as they develop reading comprehension and expressive language (Jordan,
Miller, & Riley, 2011). Parents of children with intellectual disabilities may extend to the home
the comprehension skills and expressive language children learn within the school setting
through the use of dialogic reading practices. Parents who demonstrate high self-efficacy for
dialogic reading may be more likely to successfully implement the techniques during parent-
child book reading.
The purpose for this study was (a) to determine whether participation in an intervention
designed to teach parents of children with Down syndrome dialogic reading strategies related to
parents’ self-efficacy for reading with their children, (b) to determine whether participation in an
intervention designed to teach parents of children with Down syndrome dialogic reading
strategies related to the practices parents employ when reading with their children, (c) to
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 125
determine if there is a relationship between self-efficacy for dialogic reading and the practices
parents of children with Down syndrome employed during parent-child book reading, and (d) to
determine the behaviors children with Down syndrome exhibited during parent-child book
reading.
Significant Findings
As expected, the researcher found changes in self-efficacy and behavior; however, the
study also provided insight as to how and why these changes developed. The researcher
attributes that the success of the intervention for this particular group of parents to several
potential factors. Prior to participating in the intervention, the researcher met with the Together is
Better program coordinators to select an appropriate strategy for the intervention. The program
coordinators expressed a need to improve the comprehension and oral language skills of the
children attending the program. They also noted a desire to fit the intervention within the context
of an activity parents engage in naturally with their children, parent-child book reading. Dialogic
reading fulfilled both needs. In addition to selecting dialogic reading as an intervention, program
coordinators requested that the strategies taught to parents during the intervention followed the
philosophy of errorless learning, so the researcher modified traditional dialogic reading processes
and prompts to reflect this organizational value.
In addition to the selection and customization of an intervention to meet the specific
needs of the study subjects, the researcher notes a few training factors that also contributed to the
parents’ success. The use of coping models during the training allowed parents to see members
of their peer group implement dialogic reading techniques with children who experience
challenges similar to those of their own child. Parents believed the strategies would work with
their child because they were able to see the success of other children and parents who attended
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 126
the same program. Explicit modeling, opportunities for practices, and feedback during the
training set parents up for success by ensuring they knew the purpose of each strategy and how
execute each strategy successfully. After participating in the intervention, parents had ongoing
support through the use of job aides and opportunities for follow up discussions with the
researcher. This particular group of parents was invested in the success of their children and
tended to make use of the follow up opportunities afforded to them.
Extending the Literacy Development of Children with Down Syndrome beyond the School
Day
Providing sufficient opportunities for the intensive reading instruction required to support
the literacy acquisition of children with intellectual disabilities remains a challenge within the
constraints of the traditional school day (Allor, Champlin, Gifford, & Mathes, 2010). The home
serves as a learning setting by providing children with opportunities to practice literacy skills
beyond the school day. Parents play a crucial role in supporting the extended literacy
development of their children. By engaging their children in parent-child book reading and
employing specific dialogic reading practices, parents supplied crucial support for the
development of oral language and reading comprehension behaviors in children. Multiple studies
have documented that home literacy experiences, including parent–child book reading and
parental beliefs about reading, account for a variance in children’s later reading achievement,
(Trenholm & Mirenda, 2006; van der Schuit et al., 2009). Literature indicates dialogic reading
may serve as a promising strategy for developing reading comprehension and expressive
language in children with language or developmental delays (Flynn, 2011; Jordan et al., 2011;
Whitehurst et al., 1994). Parents of children with intellectual disabilities may extend the
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 127
comprehension skills and expressive language children learn within the school setting to the
home through the use of dialogic reading practices.
Parent Perceptions of Successes and Challenges when Reading with their Child
Many parents perceived their children’s behaviors as key determinants of successful or
challenging parent-child book reading experiences. When children sustained their attention
throughout an entire text, exhibited signs of enjoyment or excitement, demonstrated basic
comprehension of the text, or asked to continue the reading experience, parents deemed the
interaction successful. When children demonstrated inattention or disrupted attention to the text,
exhibited problems with reading comprehension, or lacked motivation for book reading, parents
perceived the book reading interaction as challenging. Along with children’s behavior, many
parents reported comments indicative of low self-efficacy when discussing the challenges they
faced related to reading with their child. Parents of children with disabilities may experience a
predictive, inverse relationship between self-efficacy and stress (Frey, Greenberg, & Fewell,
1989; Friedrich, Wilturner, & Cohen, 1985; Hastings & Brown, 2002; Krauss, 1993). Qualitative
data reflected this finding; parents with lower self-efficacy reported more challenges reading
with their children and lower motivation to engage in parent-child book reading prior to
participating in the dialogic reading intervention.
Training Parents in Dialogic Reading Techniques
Parents of children with Down syndrome require knowledge of dialogic reading
strategies and sufficient self-efficacy to successfully employ such strategies in the home setting.
Parents with high self-efficacy for dialogic reading were more likely to successfully implement
the dialogic reading behaviors when reading with their children. After participating in the
dialogic reading intervention, both parent self-efficacy and parent behaviors for implementing
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 128
dialogic reading strategies improved significantly. While the study did not demonstrate a causal
relationship, self-efficacy and behaviors demonstrated significant improvements after parent
participation in the dialogic reading intervention. Perceptual data supplied by participating
parents indicated that training in dialogic reading is a worthwhile endeavor that makes a
difference in parent self-efficacy, parent behaviors, and child behaviors.
Customization of the intervention aligned to the philosophy, values, and needs of the
parents participating in the Together is Better program served as a key success factor. The
researcher selected dialogic reading as an intervention strategy because leaders of the
organization expressed concerns about the language development and reading comprehension of
the children they served. Furthermore, dialogic reading occurs within the context of a natural
interaction between parents and children, book reading. The organization did not want to amplify
the stress of parents by adding on the expectation that parents serve as tutors.
The Together is Better organization follows a philosophy of errorless learning to maintain
a positive environment and bolster the self-efficacy of the parents and children who participate in
the program. Consequently, the researcher made modifications to the dialogic reading prompts
by requiring parents to supply a model of an appropriate response prior to prompting their child
with a question. The training also emphasized scaffolded expansion of responses appropriate to
children with different levels of expressive language. Parents were also asked to modify the
PEER sequence by including specific praise after each expanded response provided by the child.
While the use of video models with parents of typically developing children provided a
foundation for understanding how to implement the dialogic reading techniques, the use of peer
video models demonstrating some natural modifications made by parents from the organization
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 129
during the baseline data collection inspired self-efficacy in many parents because of the
perceived similarity among both the parents and the children.
Use of Job Aides to Support Dialogic Reading Practices
Three different job aides were provided during the training to support parent practice of
dialogic reading techniques in the home setting (a) books labeled at point of use with dialogic
reading questions, (b) a brochure outlining the steps of the modified PEER sequence and
sentence frames for various types of prompts, and (c) a participant workbook summarizing all of
the key information from the training. Of the 28 parent participants in the study, 25 responded to
the Parent Perception Survey. Twenty-three reported using at least one of the job aides as they
practiced dialogic reading techniques at home after the training, and 12 reported using multiple
job aides during parent-child book reading. The majority of parents, 23, used the labeled books;
13 parents used the brochure; and 3 used the participant workbook during practice sessions.
When asked how the parents used the job aides, many parents reported reviewing the
books with labels and the brochure prior to reading with their child to remind them of the process,
identify the purpose for reading the text, and make modifications to the prompts as necessary
based on the specific needs and language level of their child. During reading, parents reported
using the brochure to remind them of the steps in the modified PEER process. Several themes
emerged regarding the use of the books with labels during reading. Parents reporting using the
books with labels to improve the consistency and frequency of questioning, guide the purpose for
reading each page, frame questions, inspire key discussion points for the text, and to remind
them of what to say and do. Several parents noted they did not use all of the prompts, but
adjusted the number and type of prompts based on their child’s interest, needs, and language
level.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 130
On the Parent Perception Survey, parents also provided responses regarding the most
useful aspects of the job aids. All 25 respondents to the survey provided positive feedback. The
majority reported that having the questions labeled at point of use in the text provided necessary
support as they were learning to manage the dialogic reading process. Parent Two reported that
the most useful aspect of the job aids was “keeping a list of questions right there (in the book) so
I don’t have to frantically come up with appropriate questions when it doesn’t come naturally to
me yet.” Parents also noted that the prompts helped them focus on the content of the story,
improved their child’s comprehension of the story, and made reading the story with their child
easier.
Several parents also noted that the labeled questions provided sound models and helped
them formulate their own questions when they began to read books without the labeled questions.
Parent 14 shared that she “got better with practice and mixing up grade level books. I read the
brochure once but the books were incredibly helpful and will transform how I read to my son
from any book.” Parents also discussed using the brochure in the beginning of the process as
they were practicing the new techniques and later in the process, as they began to use books from
their home library that did not have labels at point of use.
When asked what changes they would make to the job aids, five parents provided
suggestions. The first change was to modify the labels to include more “point to” and “sign for”
prompts for children with low levels of expressive language. While the group discussed this
modification during the training, the labeled prompts did not reflect the modification. Parent
Seven suggested including a visual key to level the prompts included on the page to help parents
discern more basic versus complex concepts and choose those most appropriate for their child.
Parent Nine reported that the frequency of prompting was overwhelming for her child and that
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 131
she recommended reducing the prompts to every other page. During the training, the group
discussed adjusting the frequency of prompts as needed to maintain engagement with the text,
however, the labeled books contained approximately one to two prompts per page. Parent 13
offered another suggestion for improvement, to provide a visual of the questions for the child to
read. The labels in the text were designed to cue parents to read the questions to the child, but the
parent felt that her child would benefit from reading the questions herself. Parent Two suggested
finding a way to incorporate the prompts electronically into iBooks.
In summary, the explicit nature and thoroughness of job aids appeared necessary in order
to reduce the cognitive load parents experienced while learning the dialogic reading process.
Some key features parents found contributed to their success were the step-by-step procedures
outlined in the participant workbook, training materials, and brochure, and a robust library of
books available for checkout labeled with dialogic reading questions at point of use.
Parent Self-Efficacy for Parent-Child Book Reading
Parents who experience high self-efficacy tend to engage in parenting practices that
support and sustain children’s development (Hastings & Brown, 2002; Steca, Bassi, Caprara, &
Faye, 2011). For parents of children with Down syndrome, self-efficacy for parent-child book
reading improved after participating in an intervention designed to promote dialogic reading
practices. Parents reported higher self-efficacy for applying new dialogic reading tools and
strategies. They also noted improved self-efficacy for building their child’s reading
comprehension during parent-child book reading as a result of improved consciousness about
what to do, what strategies to apply, and where to focus their efforts. Many parents reported
increased self-efficacy for interacting and communicating in meaningful ways with their child.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 132
The frequency with which several parents engaged in parent-child book reading increased, and
those parents attributed the increase to their improved self-efficacy for reading with their child.
Parent Use of Dialogic Reading Strategies
Whitehurst et al. (1988, 1994) found that variations in the way parents read to their
children account for differences in children’s expressive language. While achievement outcomes
were not measured in this study, results demonstrated a moderate, positive correlation (pre
intervention) and a strong, positive correlation (post intervention) between parent and child
behaviors during book reading interactions. Both parent and child behaviors improved
significantly after parent participation in the dialogic reading intervention. Although the study
did not prove a causal relationship, the manner in which parents read to their child and the
techniques they employed to develop oral language and support comprehension correlated
significantly to the behaviors their children exhibited while engaged in joint reading activities. In
alignment with expectations outlined in the literature, parents of children with Down syndrome
did play a crucial role in extending learning to the home setting and supporting oral vocabulary
and comprehension through the employment of dialogic reading techniques.
For parents of children with Down syndrome, the practices they employed during parent-
child book reading improved after participating in an intervention designed to promote dialogic
reading practices. Parents discussed how they became more conscious of the goals, purpose, and
focus for parent-child book reading, and this consciousness impacted the practices they applied
during the interaction. After participating in the intervention, many parents reported an increase
in their use of comprehension strategies overall and questioning strategies in specific. Several
noted an increase in the variety of questions they used to prompt their child to discuss the text.
Parent behaviors with regard to engaging their child with the text increased significantly, and
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 133
several parents reported a boost in the frequency of parent-child book reading after participating
in the intervention. Some parents noted that using multiple reads of the same text impacted their
reading behaviors by slowing the pace of the reading to allow more in depth discussion of the
text. Others reported expanded insight into their child’s thinking, which affected their strategy
selection and the behaviors they chose to use during parent-child book reading.
Relationship between Self-Efficacy and Practice
Self-efficacy mediates achievement behaviors (Schunk & Pajares, 2005; Valentine,
DuBois, & Cooper, 2004) because self-efficacy beliefs affect people’s thoughts, feelings,
motivations, and behaviors (Bandura, 1997). Contrary to the literature, the pre intervention
composite scores for parent self-efficacy and parent behaviors did not demonstrate a significant
correlation. Bandura (1977) noted that an individual’s previous performance serves as a strong
influence on self-efficacy. A possible explanation for the lack of correlation between parent self-
efficacy and parent behaviors related to dialogic reading prior to the intervention may result from
a dearth of experience engaging in the activities for which parents rated their self-efficacy. When
disaggregated, the support comprehension/vocabulary subcategory alone showed a correlation
between parent self-efficacy and parent behavior. This finding may have occurred because
parents were more familiar with the types of behaviors within this subcategory than those in the
three other categories. More experience with those behaviors may have allowed for a more
accurate calibration of self-efficacy, and therefore a significant correlation between parent self-
efficacy and parent behaviors within that subcategory prior to participation in the intervention.
After participation in the dialogic reading intervention, scores indicated a moderate,
positive correlation between parent composite scores for self-efficacy and behaviors. As parents
became more familiar with the dialogic reading strategies and practiced them during parent-child
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 134
book reading, it is possible they improved their ability to calibrate their self-efficacy for
performing the behaviors. For parents of children with Down syndrome, the practices employed
during parent-child book reading correlated with parents’ self-efficacy for dialogic reading after
participating in the intervention.
Child Behaviors during Dialogic Reading
Matthews and Hudson (2001) purport that program designers can evaluate the
generalization of parent training by comparing parent and child behaviors pre and post
intervention. The authors recommend measuring child behaviors both directly through
observation and indirectly through parent reporting. The behaviors children with Down
syndrome exhibited during parent-child book reading improved after their parents’ participation
in an intervention designed to promote dialogic reading practices as demonstrated by both direct
and indirect measures. Direct observation of child behaviors during parent-child book reading
demonstrated significant gains from pre to post intervention. As indirect measures, the parent
interviews and Parent Perception Survey revealed further insight into the nature of child
behaviors.
Many parents reported amplified engagement and interaction during parent-child book
reading after they began applying the dialogic reading techniques learned during the intervention.
Several noted intensified enjoyment for reading on the part of their child and increased attention
to text throughout the duration of the reading experience. Some parents reported increased use of
language and opportunities for communication with their child as a result of engaging in dialogic
reading.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 135
Implications
Implications for Parents of Children with Down Syndrome
Children with Down syndrome demonstrate broad deficits in language when compared to
typically developing children (Næss et al., 2011) and these impairments often prevent the
inclusion of individuals with Down syndrome in their communities (Warren & Conners, 2007).
Although reading comprehension is a challenge for many individuals with Down syndrome,
(Buckley, 2001; Morgan et al., 2004), there is limited research addressing reading
comprehension in the population (Abbeduto et al., 2007; Browder et al., 2006; Morgan, et al.,
2004). Nash and Heath (2011) found a relationship between reading comprehension and
language skills in Down syndrome and recommend interventions focused on building oral
language to remedy comprehension difficulties.
This study demonstrates that dialogic reading serves as a promising intervention that
parents can facilitate to improve the language and reading comprehension of children with Down
syndrome. With the proper training and motivation, parents of children with Down syndrome
have the potential to significantly impact the language and comprehension behaviors their
children exhibit during parent-child book reading. Parents of children with intellectual
disabilities may apply the modified dialogic reading practices taught during the intervention to
extend or supplement learning occurring at school within the home environment.
As parents of children with Down syndrome select intervention and training programs,
they may wish to consider programs that develop not only their skill set for implementing
intervention techniques, but also those that are customized to their family’s specific needs,
accommodate their child’s disability, and build their self-efficacy. Parents may consider
assessing their own self-efficacy for performing the tasks that comprise a specific intervention
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 136
prior to participating in the intervention. The awareness of the impact of self-efficacy on practice
may help parents better articulate their needs to program designers and trainers to help shape the
intervention to fit their needs. Parents may also wish to inquire what types of job aides and
ongoing support will be provided to sustain their practice beyond initial training sessions.
Implications for District and School Personnel who Support Families of Children with
Down Syndrome
In order to extend the time students with intellectual disabilities engage in literacy tasks,
district and school personnel may use the information from this study to implement interventions
for parents designed to improve parent self-efficacy and practices for parent-child book reading.
As district and school personnel observe the need for children with Down syndrome to
experience sustained practice of reading skills over a prolonged period of time to develop
language and comprehension skills, they may note limits within the confine of the traditional
school day that prevent sufficient practice from occurring. District and school personnel may
therefor look to alternative contexts, such as the home, as a feasible setting for providing
children with Down syndrome the additional support they need to acquire adequate language and
literacy skills.
Many studies attribute variance in children’s reading achievement to home experiences,
which encompass both parent–child book reading practices and parent beliefs (Trenholm &
Mirenda, 2006; van der Schuit et al., 2009). School districts may capitalize on the opportunity to
augment the practices parents employ during book reading interactions to maximize the effect on
language and comprehension skills. Dialogic reading enhances a natural practice, parent-child
book reading, by providing specific strategies and supports to make the time parents already
invest in reading with their children more effective. As parents of children with Down syndrome
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 137
ask for ways to support the literacy development of their children at home, school and district
personnel may respond by providing parent training programs in dialogic reading.
When designing parent training in dialogic reading for parents of children with Down
syndrome, district and school personnel may wish to consider several factors. Parent training
should address both the skills parents need to successfully employ dialogic reading strategies as
well as supports for bolstering parents’ self-efficacy for implementing the practices learned
during the intervention. Traditional dialogic reading techniques may require modifications to
meet the needs of children with Down syndrome and to create a positive feedback loop between
parent and child in order to avoid frustration and abandonment of the strategy. The parent
training environment should be positive, supportive, and provide parents access to models they
perceive as similar to themselves and their children to help build self-efficacy for implementing
the dialogic reading techniques. While extensive face-to-face training is not required for parents
to understand and learn dialogic reading techniques, parent practice of the strategies requires
ongoing support, feedback, and the use of structured job-aids as they build their technique and
self-efficacy.
Implications for Alternative Programs that Serve Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities
Learning programs that serve individuals with intellectual disabilities in alternative
contexts, such as after school tutoring programs, may also benefit from this research. Such
programs may consider training tutors or other personnel in dialogic reading strategies to
improve the expressive language and reading comprehension of individuals with intellectual
disabilities. Depending on the background of the tutors, they may or may not require intervention
programs at the same level of intensity as parents.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 138
Personnel working for such programs may wish to examine the modifications made to the
dialogic reading techniques and prompts for individuals with Down syndrome. Specifically, the
program may consider adopting a model of errorless learning and modify the PEER sequence by
providing a prompt that models the correct response prior to asking the child a question about the
text. By incorporating specific praise at the end of the PEER sequence, tutors can provide
children with intellectual disabilities required feedback to replicate the exhibited behavior during
future interactions. Additionally, tutors may consider selecting modified dialogic reading
prompts from the categories of print awareness/alphabet knowledge, support
vocabulary/comprehension, phonological awareness, and attention to text as opposed to the more
generic CROWD prompts to specifically pinpoint the type of skill the child needs.
In addition to considering dialogic reading as a strategy implemented within the
alternative context of a learning program, such programs may consider recruiting parents to
extend the literacy support provided within the program to the home setting. In that case, the
same recommendations regarding program design and a focus on self-efficacy described under
the implications for district and school personnel section would apply.
Limitations
This study is limited by several factors. Due to the small sample size, absence of random
selection, and lack of random assignment, the researcher is not able to draw conclusions about
causal relationships. The small sample size may represent perspectives limited by participants’
experiences, roles, and levels of commitment. Parents self-selected the Together is Better
Program for their children. This begs the question whether other variables, such as a strong
parent support network and participation in other parent training may have affected parent self-
efficacy and practice beyond the dialogic reading intervention. The researcher did not control for
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 139
the reading curriculum the children used within their school setting. Observations of parent-child
book reading did not occur within the home setting, but rather in a lab setting. The researcher
made an assumption that parents demonstrate similar parent-child book reading behaviors in the
home setting. The validity of the survey and interview data depended on the honesty of the
respondents.
Delimitations
The researcher gathered both quantitative and qualitative data to provide a multifaceted
perspective on the topics studied. The researcher triangulated data from each source to identify
the strength of relationships. While generalization of the study’s findings to other alternative
literacy programs may not be appropriate, the selection of a critical sample of parents
demonstrating a high rate of parental involvement may help future researchers determine
whether the intervention, if implemented appropriately, holds promise for expansion beyond the
critical sample.
Recommendations for Future Research
The study points to several directions for future research. The first recommendation for
future research pertains to the job aides used during the study. Another potential topic for future
research is the expansion of the dialogic reading intervention to include tutors, teachers, and
other professionals that support individuals with Down syndrome and other intellectual
disabilities. A third area for future research may measure the impact of the dialogic reading
intervention beyond parent and child behaviors, using children’s reading achievement data.
Another area for future research regards the applicability of the dialogic reading intervention to
parents of children with disabilities across other areas of exceptionality. A final recommendation
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 140
for future research examines the relationship between parent self-efficacy and the individual
characteristics of the child.
Job aids used during parent interventions. While the majority of the participants
reported the job aids proved an essential component of a successful intervention, creating
customized books with labeled prompts was a laborious process that may be difficult to replicate
on a larger scale. Future researchers may wish to determine if the labeled books were indeed
necessary for parent success or if there is a more efficient way to achieve the same result.
Additionally, future researchers may wish to explore the degree to which parents relied
on the use of job aids and whether or not parents eventually learned to replicate and apply
dialogic reading techniques without the use of job aids. This study conducted one post
intervention observation of parent-child book reading that occurred one month after the dialogic
reading training. During the final data collection, 16 of the 28 participants chose to use books
with labels and three parents chose to use the brochure. Future researchers may wish to include
multiple occasions of measurement spaced further away from the intervention to determine if
parents’ use of job aids diminishes over time. Researchers may also wish to examine the
sustainability of parent use of dialogic reading strategies and whether or not sustainability
correlates with the use of job aids.
Applicability of the dialogic reading intervention for tutors, teachers, and other
professionals who support children with intellectual disabilities. Another direction for future
research is to examine the applicability of the dialogic reading intervention for individuals other
than parents who support the literacy development of children with intellectual disabilities.
Researchers may wish to determine which aspects of the intervention and the job aides are
necessary to ensure tutors, teachers, and other professionals are able to replicate the dialogic
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 141
reading techniques. As each of these individuals works within the field of education in some
capacity, they may require different training supports than parents in order to implement dialogic
reading strategies when working children with intellectual disabilities.
Measuring correlations using student achievement data. While the study measured
changes in parent self-efficacy, parent behaviors, and child behaviors pre and post intervention,
the researcher did not examine student achievement data to determine if changes occurred pre
and post intervention. Future researchers who are able to extend the length of the study over
several months may wish to examine changes in student achievement data, specifically in the
area of oral language and reading comprehension, to determine if there are differences pre and
post intervention. Although the positive changes noted in the study related to parent self-efficacy,
parent behavior, and child behavior were encouraging to observe, correlations to achievement
data would build a stronger case for expansion of the dialogic reading intervention across
multiple parent groups, school districts, and alternative contexts for supporting the literacy
development of children with intellectual disabilities.
Applicability across other categories of exceptionality. While the researcher conducted
the study specifically with parents of children with Down syndrome, future researchers may wish
to explore the applicability of the dialogic reading intervention to parents of children with other
exceptionalities. Children with intellectual disabilities other than Down syndrome, children with
developmental delays, children with speech and language impairments, and children with autism
may benefit from their parents’ use of dialogic reading strategies during parent-child book
reading. Future researchers would need to explore the applicability of the modifications used
with children with Down syndrome to children with other types of exceptionalities to determine
if the modifications are appropriate to these populations.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 142
Within group differences. Future researchers may wish to examine within group
differences, noting the interaction between parents’ self-efficacy and the specific characteristics
of their child. A child’s age, learning characteristics, behaviors, or diagnosis of multiple
disabilities may all serve as factors in predicting a parent’s level of self-efficacy. Fewer parent-
child interactions or interactions of an unpredictable nature may affect a parent’s view of self and
their ability to help their child learn. The field may also benefit from researching the way in
which parents’ general self-efficacy relates to the specific learning characteristics of their child.
Conclusion
This study attempted to address the reading comprehension and oral language challenges
faced by children with Down syndrome by exploring dialogic reading as a strategy parents may
employ to improve literacy skills in the home setting. Given that limited language and reading
difficulties pose academic and social challenges for this population of children, it is important for
research to establish evidence based strategies to support the development of these critical skills
in children with Down syndrome. This study provides evidence that parent self-efficacy for
implementing dialogic reading strategies as well as the promotive practices they employ during
parent-child book reading improved after participation in a dialogic reading intervention, and
that self-efficacy relates to practice. Furthermore, the reading behaviors children exhibited
during parent-child book reading improved significantly after their parents’ participation in a
dialogic reading intervention and the children’s behaviors correlated with their parents’
behaviors. Given that the constraints of the traditional school day may not allow for adequate
time and intensity of instruction to improve the oral language and reading comprehension of
children with Down syndrome, training parents to implement dialogic reading techniques in the
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 143
home setting may provide additional opportunities to supplement literacy development for the
population.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 144
References
Abbeduto, L., Pavetto, M., & Kesin, E. (2001). The linguistic and cognitive profile of Down
syndrome: evidence from a comparison with fragile X syndrome. Downs Syndrome
Research and Practice, 7, 9–16.
Abbeduto, L., Warren, S. F., & Conners, F. A. (2007). Language development in Down
syndrome: From the prelinguistic period to the acquisition of literacy. Mental Retardation
and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 247-261.
Adamson, L., & Chance, S. (1998). Coordinating attention to people, objects, and language. In:
Wetherby S, Warren S, Reichle J, editors. Transitions in prelinguistic communication.
Baltimore: Brookes.
Adamson, L.B., Bakeman, R., Deckner, D.F., & Romski, M. (2009). Joint engagement and the
emergence of language in children with Autism and Down syndrome. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 39, 84-96.
Al Otaiba, S., & Hosp, M.K. (2004). Providing effective literacy instruction to students with
Down syndrome. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(4), 28-35.
Al Otaiba, S., Lewis, S., Whalon, K., Dyrlund, A., & McKenzie, A.R. (2009). Home literacy
environments of young children with Down syndrome. Remedial and Special Education,
30(2), 96-107.
Al-Kandari, H.Y. & Al-Qashan, H. (2010). Maternal Self-Efficacy of Mothers of Children with
Intellectual Developmental Disabilities, Down Syndrome, and Autism in Kuwait. Child
and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 27, 21-39.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 145
Allor, J.H., Champlin, T.M., Gifford, D.B., & Mathes, P.G. (2010). Methods for increasing the
intensity of reading instruction for students with intellectual disabilities. Education and
Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45(4), 500-511.
Allor, J.H., Mathes, P.G., Roberts, J.K., Cheatham, J.P., & Champlin, T.M. (2010).
Comprehensive reading instruction for students with intellectual disabilities: Findings
from the first three years of a longitudinal study. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 445
466.
Alloway T. P. & Temple K. J. () A comparison of working memory skills and learning in
children with developmental coordination disorder and moderate learning difficulties.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 473-487.
Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, J.A., & Wilkinson, I.A.G. (1985). Becoming a nation of
readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Washington, DC: National Institute
of Education.
Ardelt, M., & Eccles, J.S. (2001). Effects of mothers’ parental efficacy beliefs and promotive
parenting strategies on inner city youth. Journal of Family Issues, 22(8), 944-972.
Aunola, K., Nurmi, J. E., Niemi, P., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2002).
Developmental dynamics of achievement strategies, reading performance, and parental
beliefs. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(3), 310-327.
Aylward, E. H., Li, Q., Honeycutt, N. A., Warren, A. C., Pulsifier, M. B. & Barta, P. E. (1999).
MRI volumes of the hippocampus and amygdala in adults with Down syndrome with and
without dementia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 564-8.
Baddeley A. D., & Jarrold C. (2007). Working memory and Down syndrome. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 51, 925-931.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 146
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Jarrold, C. (2007). Working memory and Down syndrome. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 51, 925-931.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy.
Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729-735.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and
Company.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G.V. & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-
efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206-1222.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory of Mass Communication. Media Psychology, 3(3),
265-299.
Bayliss, D. M., Jarrold, C., Baddeley, A. D., & Leigh, E. (2005). Differential constraints on the
working memory and reading abilities of individuals with learning difficulties and
typically developing children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92, 76-99.
Beckman, P.J. (1991). Comparison of mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of the effect of young
children with and without disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 95, 585-
595.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 147
Biemiller, A. (2005). Vocabulary development and instruction: A prerequisite for school
learning. In Dickinson, D., & Neuman, S. (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research
(Vol. 2, pp. 41–52). New York: Guilford.
Bochner, S., & Pietrese, M. (1996). Teenagers with Down syndrome in a time of changing
policies and practices: Progress of students who were born between 1971 and 1978.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 43, 75–95.
Bochner, S., Outhred, L., and Pieterse, M. (2001). A study of functional literacy skills in young
adults with Down syndrome. International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education, 48(1), 67-90.
Boothroyd, R. A. (1997). Preliminary manual for the caregiver self-efficacy scale. Tampa,
Florida: Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, University of South Florida.
Boudreau, D. (2002). Literacy skills in children and adolescents with Down syndrome. Reading
and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 49-525.
Boyraz, F. & Sayger, T.V. (2011). Psychological Well-Being Among Fathers of Children With
and Without Disabilities: The Role of Family Cohesion, Adaptability, and Paternal Self-
Efficacy. American Journal of Men’s Health, 5(4), 286-296.
Briesch, A.M., Chafouleas, S.M., Lebel, T.J., & Blom-Hoffman, J.A. (2008). Impact Of
Videotaped Instruction In Dialogic Reading Strategies: An Investigation of Caregiver
Implementation Integrity. Psychology in the Schools, 45(10), 978-993.
Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2006).
Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 72, 392-408.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 148
Buckley, S. (2001). Reading and writing for individuals with Down syndrome: An overview.
Retrieved from http://www.down-syndrome.org/information/reading/overview/.
Buckley, S., Bird, G., & Byrne, A. (1996). Reading acquisition by young children. In B.
Stratford & P. Gunn (Eds.), New approaches to Down’s Syndrome (pp. 268–279).
London: Cassell.
Buckley, S., Bird, G., Sacks, B., and Archer, T. (2006). A comparison of mainstream and special
education for teenagers with Down syndrome: Implications for parents and teachers.
Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 9(3), 54-67.
Bus, A. G., van IJzendorn, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for
success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy.
Review of Educational Research, 65, 1–21.
Byrne, A., Buckley, S., MacDonald, J. & Bird, G. (1995). Investigating the literacy, language
and memory skills of children with Down syndrome. Down Syndrome Research and
Practice, 3, 53-58.
Caffrey, E., & Fuchs, D. (2007). Differences in performance between students with learning
disabilities and mild retardation: Implications for categorical instruction. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 119-128.
Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., Petitta, L. (2003). Teachers’, school staff’s and
parents’ efficacy beliefs as determinants of attitudes toward school. European Journal of
Psychology Education, 18(1), 15-31.
Cardoso-Martins, C. & Frith, U. (2001). Can individuals with Down syndrome acquire
alphabetic literacy skills in the absence of phoneme awareness? Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 361–375.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 149
Cardoso-Martins, C., Michalick, M.F. & Pollo, T.C. (2002). Is sensitivity to rhyme a develop
mental precursor to sensitivity to phoneme?: Evidence from individuals with Down
syndrome, Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 439–454.
Cardoso-Martins, C., Peterson, R., Olson, R., & Pennington, B. (2009). Component reading
skills in Down Syndrome. Reading and Writing, 22, 277-292.
Casey, W., Jones, D., Kugler, B., and Watkins, B. (1988). Integration of Down's Syndrome
children in the primary school: A longitudinal study of cognitive development and
academic attainments. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(3), 279-286.
Cebula, K.R., Moore, D.G., & Wishart, J.G. (2010). Social cognition in children with Down’s
syndrome: Challenges to research and theory building. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research, 54(2), 113-134.
Chapman R. S. (). Language development in children and adolescents with Down syndrome.
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Review, 3, 307-312.
Chapman, J.W., & Tunmer, W.E. (1997). A longitudinal study of beginning reading achievement
and reading self-concept. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 279-291.
Chapman, R. S. (1997). Language development in children and adolescents with Down
syndrome. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Review, 3, 307-
312.
Chapman, R. S. (2003). Language and communication in individuals with DS. In: Abbeduto, L.,
editor. International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, Vol. 27. New York:
Academic Press.
Chapman, R. S. & Hesketh, L.J. (2000). Behavioral phenotype of individuals with Down
syndrome. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 6, 84-95.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 150
Chapman, R. S., Sindberg, H., Bridge, C., Gigstead, K., & Hesketh, L. (2006). Effect of memory
support and elicited production on fast mapping of new words by adolescents with Down
syndrome. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 49, 3-15.
Coleman, C. & Bornholdt, L. (2003). Reading self-concepts and task choices for children with
reading difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 3, 24-31.
Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K. H. (1997). Self-efficacy and parenting quality: Findings and
future applications. Developmental Review, 18, 47-85.
Collins, L. & Matthey, S. (2001). Helping parents to read with their children: Evaluation of an
individual and group reading motivation programme. Journal of Research in Reading, 24,
65-81.
Cologon, K., Cupples, L., & Wyver, S. (2011). Effects of Targeted Reading Instruction on
Phonological Awareness and Phonic Decoding in Children with Down Syndrome.
American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 116(2), 111-129.
Conners, F. A. (1992). Reading instruction for students with moderate mental retardation:
Review and analysis of research. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 96, 577–597.
Cossu, G., Rossini, F., & Marshall, J. C. (1993). When reading is acquired but phonemic
awareness is not: A study of literacy in Down’s syndrome. Cognition, 46, 129–138.
Couzens, D., Haynes, M., & Cuskelly, M. (2012). Individual and environmental characteristics
associated with cognitive development in Down syndrome: A longitudinal study. Journal
of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 25(5), 306-413.
Creswell, J.W. (2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 151
Cummings, J. (1993). Frontal-sub cortical circuits and human behaviour. Archives of Neurology,
50, 873-880.
Cupples, L. & Iacono, T. (2000). Phonological awareness and oral reading skill in children with
Down syndrome, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 43(3), 595-608.
Cupples, L. & Iacono, T. (2002). The efficacy of ‘whole word’ versus ‘analytic’ reading
instruction for children with Down syndrome. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 15, 549-574.
Dale, P.S., Crain-Thoreson, C., Notari-Syerson, A., & Cole, K. (1996). Parent-child book
reading as an intervention technique for young children with language delays. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, 16(2), 213-235.
Danesco, E. R. (1997). Parental beliefs on childhood disability: Insights on culture, child
development, and intervention. International Journal of Disability, Development, and
Education, 44(1), 41-52.
Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., Weiss, H.B. (2006). Family involvement in school and
low-income children’s literacy: Longitudinal associations between and within families.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 653-664.
DeBaryshe, B. D. (1995). Maternal belief system: Linchpin in the home reading process. Journal
of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 1–20.
Developmental dynamics of achievement strategies, reading performance, and parental beliefs.
Reading Research Quarterly, 37(3), 310-327.
Eadie, P., Fey, M., & Douglas, J. (2002). Profiles of grammatical morphology and sentence
imitation in children with specific language impairment and Down syndrome. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 720–732.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 152
Eccles, J. S. (1993). School and family effects on the ontogeny of children’s interests, self-
perceptions, and activity choices. In J. E. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation 1992: Developmental perspectives on motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 145-208).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Eccles-Parson, J. S., Adler, T. F., & Kaczula, C. M. (1982). Socialization of achievement
attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 53, 310-321.
Edmunds, K. M., & Bauserman, K. L. (2006). What teachers can learn about reading motivation
through conversations with children. Reading Teacher, 59, 414-424.
Eisner, M. & Meidert, U. (2011). Stages of Parental Engagement in a Universal Parent
Training Program. Journal of Primary Prevention, 32, 83-93.
Elias, G., Hay, I., Homel, R. & Freiberg, K. (2006). Enhancing parent-child book reading in a
disadvantaged community. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31, 20-25.
Elliott, R. (2003). Executive functions and their disorders. British Medical Bulletin, 65, 49-59.
Entwisle, D. R., & Hayduk, L. A. (1978). Too great expectations: The academic outlook of
young children. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Entwisle, D. R., & Hayduk, L. A. (1988). Lasting effects of elementary school. Sociology of
Education, 61, 147–159.
Entwisle, D.R., & Baker, D.P. (1983). Gender and young children’s orthographic skills in the
prediction of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 472-481.
Fidler, D. J., & Nadel, L. (2007). Education and children with Down syndrome: Neuroscience,
development, and intervention. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities
Research Reviews, 13, 262–271.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 153
Flynn, K.S. (2011). Developing children's oral language skills through dialogic reading:
Guidelines for implementation. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(2), 8-16.
Fowler, A. E., Dohert, B. J., & Boynton, L. (1995). The basis of reading skill in young adults
with Down syndrome. In H. Nadel & D. Rosenthal (Eds.), Down Syndrome: Living and
learning in the community (pp. 182–196). New York: Wiley-Liss.
Friedrich, W.N., Wilturner, L.T. & Cohen, D.S. (1985). Coping resources and parenting mentally
retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiencies, 90(2), 130-139.
Frey, K.S., Greenberg, M.T.& Fewell, R.R. (1989). Stress and coping among children: A
multidimensional approach. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94(3), 240-249.
Frome, P. M., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Parents' influence on children's achievement-related
perceptions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology.74, 435-452.
Furstenberg, F.F. (1993). How families manage risk and opportunity in dangerous
neighborhoods. In W.J. Wilson (Ed.), Sociology and the public agenda (pp. 231-258).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Phonological memory deficits in language
disordered children: is there a causal connection? Journal of Memory and Language, 29,
336-360.
Gill, S., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Educational expectations and school achievement of urban
African American children. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 403–424.
Goetz, K., Hulme, C., Brogstocke, S., Caroll, J.M., Nasir, L., & Snowling, M. (2008). Training
reading and phoneme awareness skills in children with Down syndrome. Reading and
Writing, 21, 395-412.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 154
Gombert, J.E. (2002). Children with Down syndrome use phonological knowledge in reading.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 455–469.
Goodnow, J.J. (1985). Change and variation in parents’ ideas about childhood and parenting. In
I.E. Sigel (Ed.), Parental belief systems (pp. 235-270). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gottfried, A. E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior high school
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(6), 631-645.
Gunn, D.M. & Jarrold, C. (2004). Raven’s matrices performance in Down syndrome: Evidence
of unusual errors. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25, 443-457.
Halle, T.G., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Mahoney, J.L. (1997). Family influences on school
achievement in low-income, African American children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89(3), 527-537.
Hargrave, A.C. & Senechal, M. (2000). A book reading intervention with preschool children
who have limited vocabularies: The benefits of regular reading and dialogic reading.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(1), 75-90.
Hasselhorn, M., & Maehler, C. (2007). Phonological working memory of children in two
German special schools. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education
54, 225–244.
Hastings, R. P., & Brown, T. (2002). Behavior problems of children with autism, parental self-
efficacy, and mental health. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 107(3), 222-232.
Haupt, E.I., Van Kirk, M.J., & Terraciano, T. (1975). An inexpensive fading procedure to
decrease errors and increase retention of number facts. In Ramp, E. Y Semb, G. (Eds.),
Behavior analysis: Areas for research and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 155
Henry, L. A., & MacLean, M. (2002). Working memory performances in children with and
without intellectual disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107, 421–432.
Henry, L., & Winfield, J. (2010). Working memory and educational achievement in children
with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54(4), 354-365.
Hood, M., Conlon, E., & Andrews, G. (2008). Preschool home literacy practices and children’s
literacy development: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,
100(2), 252-271.
Hoogeveen, F. R., Kouwenhoven, J. A., & Smeets, P. M. (1989). Establishing sound blending in
moderately mentally retarded children: Implications of verbal instruction and pictorial
prompting. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 10, 333–348.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1992). Explorations in parent-school
relations. Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 287-294.
Huebner, C. E. (2006). Optimizing the effects of shared reading on early language skills. In
A.van Kleeck (Ed.), Sharing books and stories to promote language and literacy. San
Diego: Plural. (pp. 149-177)
Huebner, C.E. & Meltzoff, A.N. (2005). Intervention to change parent-child reading style: A
comparison of instructional methods. Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 296-313.
Huebner, C.E., Payne, K. (2010). Home support for emergent literacy: Follow-up of a
community-based implementation of dialogic reading. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 31, 195-201.
Hulme, C., Goetz, K., Brigstocke, S., Nash, H., & Snowling, M. Development of Reading and
Phonological Awareness in Down Syndrome. University of York; in preparation.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 156
Jarrold, C., Baddeley, A.D., & Hewes, A.K. (2000). Verbal short-term memory deficits in Down
syndrome: A consequence of problems in rehearsal?. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 40(2), 233-244.
Jordan, S., Miller, G.L., & Riley, K. (2011). Enhancements of dialogic reading for young
children with Down’s syndrome. Young Exceptional Children, 14(4), 19-30.
Justice, L.M., Kaderavek, J., Bowles, R., & Grimm, K. (2005). Language Impairment, Parent
Child Shared Reading, and Phonological Awareness: A Feasibility Study. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 25(3), 143-156.
Katims, D. S. (2000). Literacy instruction for people with mental retardation: Historical
highlights and contemporary analysis. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities, 35, 3–15.
Katims, D. S. (2001). Literacy assessment of students with mental retardation: An exploratory
investigation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities, 36, 363–371.
Kay-Raining Bird, E., Cleave, P.L., & McConnell. (2000). Reading and phonological awareness
in children with Down syndrome: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Speech-
Language Pathology, 9, 319–330.
Kennedy, E.J. & Flynn, M.C. (2003). Training phonological awareness skills in children with
Down syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24, 44-57.
King, G., Baxter, D. Rosenbaum, P., Zwaigenbaum, L., & Bates, A. (2009). Belief Systems of
Families of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders or Down Syndrome. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 4(1), 50-64.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 157
Klauda, S. (2009). The role of parents in adolescents’ reading motivation and activity.
Educational Psychology Review, 21(4), 325–363
Klauda, S.L. & Wigfield, A. (2012). Relations of Perceived Parent and Friend Support for
Recreational Reading With Children's Reading Motivations. Journal of Literacy
Research, 44(1), 3-44.
Kuhn, J. C., & Carter, A. S. (2006). Maternal self-efficacy and associated parenting cognitions
among mothers of children with autism. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(4),
564-575.
Lanfranchi S., Jerman O., Dal Pont E., Alberti A. & Vianello R. (2010). Executive function in
adolescents with Down syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54, 308-
319.
Lanfranchi, S., Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Vianello, R. (2012). Working memory in Down
syndrome: Is there a dual task deficit? Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56(2),
157-166.
Laws, G., Byrne, A., & Buckley, S. (2000). Language and memory development in children with
Down syndrome at mainstream and special schools: A comparison. Educational
Psychology, 20 (4), 447–457.
Lee, N.R., Pennington, B.F., & Keenan, J.M. (2010). Verbal short-term memory deficits in
Down syndrome: phonological, semantic, or both? Journal of Neurodevelopmental
Disorders, 2, 9-25.
Lemons, C.J. & Fuchs, D. (2010a). Modeling response to reading intervention in children with
Down syndrome: An examination of predictors of differential growth. Reading Research
Quarterly, 45(2), 134-168.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 158
Lemons, C.J & Fuchs, D. (2010b). Phonological awareness of children with Down syndrome: Its
role in learning to read and the effectiveness of related interventions. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 31, 316-330.
Lynch, J. (2002). Parents’ self-efficacy beliefs, parents’ gender, children’s reader self-
perceptions, reading achievement and gender. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(1), 54-
67.
Lyytinen, P., Rasku-Puttone, H.N., Poikkeusa, M., Laaksom, L., Onatsut, E. & Nurmi, J. (1997).
Mother-child teaching strategies and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 2(7), 186-192.
MacDuff, G.S., Krantz, P.J., & McClannahan, L.E. (1993). Teaching children with autism to use
photographic activity schedules: Maintenance and generalization of complex response
chainings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 89-97.
Malott, R.W., Whaley, D.C., & Malott, M.E. (1997). Elementary principles of behavior. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Margolis, H. & McCabe, P.P. (2006). Improving self-efficacy and motivation: What to do, what
to say. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(4), 218-227.
Marvin, C. (1994). Home literacy experiences of preschool children with single and multiple
disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 14, 436–454.
Marvin, C., & Mirenda, P. (1993). Home literacy experiences of preschoolers enrolled in Head
Start and Special Education programs. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 351-367.
Matthews, J.M. & Hudson, A.M. (2001). Guidelines for Evaluating Parent Training Programs.
Family Relations, 50(1), 77-86.
Mayer, R. (2011). Applying the Science of Learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 159
Meunier, J.C. & Roskam, I. (2009). Self-Efficacy Beliefs Amongst Parents of Young Children:
Validation of a Self-Report Measure. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 495-511.
Moni, K.B. & Jobling, A. (2001). Reading related literacy learning of young adults with Down
syndrome: Findings from a 3-year teaching and research programme. International
Journal of Disability Development and Education, 48, 377–94.
Morgan, L. & Goldstein, H. (2004). Teaching mothers in low socio-economic status to use
decontextualized language during storybook reading. Journal of Early Intervention, 26,
235-252.
Morgan, M., Moni, K.B., & Jobling, A. (2004). What's it all about? Investigating reading
comprehension strategies in young adults with Down syndrome. Down Syndrome
Research and Practice, 9(2), 37-44.
Morgan, P.L. & Meier, C.R. (2008). Dialogic reading’s potential to improve children’s emergent
literacy skills and behavior. Preventing School Failure, 52(4), 11-16.
Næss, K.A., Lyster, S.A. H., Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervag, M. (2011). Language and memory
skills in children with Down syndrome: A meta-analytic review. Research in
Developmental Disabilities 32(6), 225-234.
Nash, H., & Heath, J. (2011). The role of vocabulary, working memory and inference making
ability in reading comprehension in Down syndrome. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 32, 1782-1791.
National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (2010). Down Syndrome Disability
Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/fs4.pdf.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National
Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 160
research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the
subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
National Institutes of Childhood Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network.
(2005). Pathways to reading: The role of oral language in the transition to reading.
Developmental Psychology, 41, 428-442.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the
scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.
Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.
Natsopoulos, D., Christou, C., Koutselini, M., Rafopoulos, A., & Karefillidou, C. (2002).
Structure and coherence of reasoning ability in Down syndrome adults and typically
developing children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 23, 297-307.
Neuenschwander, M.P., Vida, M., Garrett, J.L., & Eccles, S.J. (2007). Parents' expectations and
students' achievement in two western nations. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 31(6), 594-602.
Neuman, S.B. & Dickinson, D.K. (Eds.). (2002). The Handbook of Early Literacy Research.
New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Pakenham, K., Sofronoff, K., & Samios, C. (2004). Finding meaning in parenting a child with
Asperger syndrome: Correlates of sense making and benefit finding. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 25, 245-264.
Paratore, J.R., Cassano, C.M., & Schickedanz, J.A. (2011). Supporting early (and later) literacy
development at home and at school: The long view. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 161
Moje, and P.P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research Volume IV (107-135).
New York: Taylor & Francis.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Payne, A. C., Whitehurst, G. J., & Angell, A. L. (1994). The role of literacy environment in the
language development of children from low-income families. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 9(3), 427-440.
Petrill, S. A. and Justice, L. M. (2007). Bridging the Gap Between Genomics and Education.
Mind, Brain, and Education, 1, 153–161.
Phillips, D. (1987). Validity in qualitative research: Why the worry with warrant will not wane.
Education and Urban Society, 20(1), 9-24.
Phillips, B.M. & Lonigan, C.J. (2009). Variations in the home literacy environment of preschool
children: A cluster analytic approach. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(2), 146-174.
Pickering, S. J. & Gathercole, S. E. (2004). Distinctive working memory profiles in children with
special educational needs. Educational Psychology, 24, 393-408.
Price, L. H., van Kleeck, A., & Huberty, C. J. (2009). Talk during book sharing between parents
and preschool children: A comparison between storybook and expository book
conditions. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(2), 171 – 194.
Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1990). Manual for Raven’s Coloured Progressive
Matrices. Oxford: Oxfords Psychologists Press.
Roe, M.F., & Vukelich, C. (2001). Understanding the gap between America Reads Program and
the tutoring sessions: The nesting of challenges. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 16, 39-52.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 162
Rondal, J.A., & Buckley S. (2003). Speech and language intervention in Down syndrome.
London: Whurr.
Rosenquist, C., Conners, F. A., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. (2003). Phonological and visuo-spatial
working memory in individuals with intellectual disability. American Journal on Mental
Retardation, 108, 403–413.
Rowe, J., Lavender, A., & Turk, V. (2010). Cognitive executive function in Down's syndrome.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 5-17.
Rynders, J., Abery, B. H., Spiker, D., Olive, M. L., Sheran, C. P., & Zajac, R. J. (1997).
Improving educational programming for individuals with Down syndrome: Engaging the
fuller competence. Down Syndrome Quarterly, 2, 1–11.
Schuchardt, K., Gebhardt, M., & Maehler, C. (2010). Working memory functions in children
with different degrees of intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research, 54, 346–353.
Schuchardt, K., Maehler, C., & Hasselhorn, M. (2011). Functional deficits in phonological
working memory in children with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 32, 1934-1940.
Schunk, D.H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive achievement: Implications for students with
learning problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 14-22.
Schunk, D.H. & Parajas, E. (2005). Competence perceptions and academic functioning. In A.J.
Elliot & C.S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp.85-104). New
York: Guilford Press.
Schunk, D.H., Pintrich, P.R. & Meece, J.L. (2008). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research,
and Applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 163
Senechal, M. (1997). The differential effect of storybook reading on preschoolers’ acquisition of
expressive and receptive vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 24, 123–138.
Senechal, M. & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s
reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73(2), 445-460.
Sénéchal, M. & Young, L. (2008). The Effect of Family Literacy Interventions on Children's
Acquisition of Reading from Kindergarten to Grade 3: A Meta-Analytic Review. Review
of Educational Research, 78(4), 880-907.
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2005). School programs of family and community involvement
to support children's reading and literacy development across the grades. In J. Flood & P.
Anders (Eds.), The literacy development of students in urban schools: Research and
policy (pp. 107-138). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Sigel, I.E. (1992). Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for children.
Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Silverman, W. (2007). Down syndrome: Cognitive phenotype. Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 228-236.
Snowling, M.J., Hulme, C, & Mercer, R. (2002). A deficit in rime awareness in children with
Down syndrome. Reading and Writing, 15, 471–95.
Snowling, M.J., Nash, H.M., & Henderson, L.M. (2008). The development of literacy skills in
children with Down syndrome: Implications for intervention. Down Syndrome Research
and Practice. Retrieved from www.down-syndrome.org/research.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 164
Steca, P., Bassi, M., Caprara, G.V., & Fave, A.D. (2011). Parents’ self-efficacy beliefs and their
children’s psychosocial adaptation during adolescence. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 40,
320-331.
Stephenson, K.A., Parrila, R.K., Georgiou, G.K., & Kirby, J.R. (2008). Effects of home literacy,
parents' beliefs, and children's task-focused behavior on emergent literacy and word
reading skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(1), 24-50.
Stevenson, H. W., Parker, T., Wilkinson, A., Hegion, A., & Fish, E. (1976). Predictive value of
teachers’ ratings of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 507–517.
Stipek, D., Milburn, S., Clements, D., & Daniels, D. H. (1992). Parents' beliefs about appropriate
education for young children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13, 293-
310.
Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading:
Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934–947.
Strommen, L.T., & Mates, B.F. (2004). Learning to love reading: Interviews with older children
and teens. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48, 188–200.
Thomas, M., Annaz, D., Ansari, D., Scerif, G., Jarrold, C., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2009). Using
developmental trajectories to understand developmental disorders. Journal of Speech
Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 336-358.
Trenholm, B., & Mirenda, P. (2006). Home and community literacy experiences of individuals
with Down syndrome. Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 10(1), 30-40.
Umek, L.M., Podlesek, A., & Fekonja, U. (2005). Assessing the home literacy environment:
Relationships to child language comprehension and expression. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 21(4), 271-281.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 165
Valentine, J. C., Dubois, D. L., & Cooper, H. (2004). The relation between self-beliefs and
academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 39, 111-133.
van Bysterveldt, A., Gillon, G.T., & Moran, C. (2006). Enhancing phonological awareness and
letter knowledge in preschool children with Down syndrome. International Journal of
Disability, Development and Education, 53, 301-329.
Van der Molen, M. J., Van Luit, J. E. H., Jongmans, M. J., & Van der Molen, M. W. (2007).
Verbal working memory in children with mild intellectual disabilities. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 51, 162–169.
van der Schuit, M., Peeters, M. Segers, E., van Balkom, H., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Home
literacy environment of pre-school children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 52(12), 1024-1037.
Vincent, J., & Houlihan, D. (1991). Measuring self-efficacy with female adolescents who are
conduct disordered. Behavioral Interventions, 6(4), 303-310.
Wasik, B. A., Bond, M. A., & Hindman, A. H. (2006). The effects of a language and literacy
intervention on Head Start children and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98,
63-74.
Watkins, C.R. (1997). Handbook of Psychotherapy Supervision. Chichester: J. Wiley & Sons.
Weikle, B., & Hadadian, A. (2004). Literacy, development and disabilities: Are we moving in
the right direction? Early Child Development and Care, 7, 651-666.
Wentzel, K.R. (1998). Parents' Aspirations for Children's Educational Attainments: Relations to
Parental Beliefs and Social Address Variables. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44(1), 20.
Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child
Development, 68, 848–872.
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 166
Whitehurst, G.J., Arnold, D.S., Epstein, J.N., Angell, A.L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J.E. (1994). A
picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income
families. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 679-689.
Whitehurst, G.J., Falco, F.L., Lonigan, C.J., Fischel, J.E., DeBarysche, B.D., Valdez-Menchaca,
M.C., & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book
reading. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 552-559.
Wigfield, A., & Asher, S. T. (1984). Social and motivational influences on reading. In P. D.
Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, and P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp.
423-452). New York: Longman.
Wishart, J.G. (1993). The development of learning difficulties in children with Down's
syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 37, 389-403.
Wooley, G. & Hay, I. (2007). Reading intervention: The benefits of using trained tutors.
Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 30(1), 9-20.
Zigler, E., & Balla, D. (1982). Mental retardation: The developmental-difference controversy.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 167
APPENDIX A: PARENT SELF-EFFICACY SCALE FOR DIALOGIC READING
Thank you for your willingness to participate in my survey. The survey will take approximately 10 minutes to
complete. This survey is designed to provide insight into the types of behaviors adults feel capable of performing
when reading to/with children.
Name

(If you prefer not to include your name, please ask the researcher for a code to enter here.)

Race (select all that apply)
¡ White/Caucasian
¡ Black/African American
¡ Native American/Alaska Native
¡ Asian Indian
¡ Japanese
¡ Native Hawaiian
¡ Chinese
¡ Korean
¡ Filipino
¡ Vietnamese
¡ Samoan
¡ Guamanian or Chamorro
¡ Other Asian
¡ Other Pacific Islander
¡ Other Race

Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? (select all that apply)
¡ No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
¡ Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano
¡ Yes, Puerto Rican
¡ Yes, Cuban
¡ Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
Highest level of education completed
¡ Some high school High school/GED
¡ Some college
¡ 2 year college degree
¡ 4 year college degree
¡ Some graduate school
¡ Master's degree
¡ Some post graduate school
¡ Doctoral degree
¡ Professional degree (JD, MBA, MD)

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 168
Current occupation
¡ Educator (if educator, please describe the nature of your work)

¡ Non-educator
Ages of children (select all that apply)
¡ <1
¡ 1
¡ 2
¡ 3
¡ 4
¡ 5
¡ 6
¡ 7
¡ 8
¡ 9
¡ 10
¡ 11
¡ 12
¡ 13
¡ 14
¡ 15
¡ 16
¡ 17
¡ Adult

Age of child who attends Together is Better
¡ <1
¡ 1
¡ 2
¡ 3
¡ 4
¡ 5
¡ 6
¡ 7
¡ 8
¡ 9
¡ 10
¡ 11
¡ 12
¡ 13
¡ 14
¡ 15
¡ 16
¡ 17
¡ Adult

How long has your child attended Together is Better?
¡ New to the program
¡ Between 1 and 6 months
¡ Between 7 months and 11 months
¡ Between 12 and 23 months
¡ 24 months or longer

Within the last three months, how frequently have you read with your child who attends Together is
Better?
¡ Daily
¡ A few times per week
¡ Weekly
¡ 2-3 times per month
¡ Once a month
¡ Less than once a month
¡ Never

If you have read with your child who attends Together is Better over the past 3 months, indicate on
average how much time you spend reading at one sitting.
¡ 0-5 minutes
¡ 6-10 minutes
¡ 11-15 minutes
¡ 16-20 minutes
¡ 21-25 minutes
¡ 26-30 minutes
¡ 31-35 minutes
¡ 36-40 minutes
¡ 41-45 minutes
¡ more than 45 minutes
A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 169
Have you had any previous training focused on reading with your child?
¡ Yes
¡ No
If so, describe the training. (For example: How many sessions? How long were the sessions? What topics were
covered?)

PRACTICE ITEM: To familiarize yourself with the rating form, please complete this practice item first.
If you were asked to lift objects of different weights right now, how certain are you that you can lift each of the
weights described below? Rate your degree of confidence by circling a number from 0-10 using the scale given
below.
Cannot do
at all
Moderately
Certain Can
do
Highly
Certain Can
Do
Lift a 10 lb. object 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Lift a 50 lb. object 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Lift a 100 lb. object 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 170
Please rate how certain you are you can perform the following tasks when reading with
your child who attends Together is Better. Rate your degree of confidence for each task by
circling a number from 1-10 using the scale given below.
Cannot
do at all
Moderately
Certain Can
do
Highly
Certain Can
Do
Ask child to locate book parts (front,
back, bottom, or top).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ask open-ended questions or
request predictions about a
book/story.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Call child's attention to rhyming
words in a book/story.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Seat child near me or on my lap. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ask child where to begin reading a
book/story.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Point to pictures and words to help
the child understand a book/story.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Direct child's attention to syllables
in words from a book/story.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Use storytelling voice/animation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ask child to identify a letter or word
in a book/story.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ask child to recall information from
a book/story.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Direct child's attention to initial or
ending sounds in words (onset and
rime) that appear in a book/story.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Redirect child's attention to a
book/story.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pause to answer child's question. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Direct child's attention to repeated
words or phrases that appear in a
book/story.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Keep child engaged in a book/story. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Elaborate on or rephrase child's
ideas.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Give child opportunity to hold book,
touch book, or turn pages.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Relate a story to real life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Thank you for your participation!

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 171
APPENDIX B: DIALOGIC READING INVENTORY FOR PARENT-CHILD BOOK
READING
Adult Behavior Tally Score Child Behavior Tally Score
Print Awareness/Alphabet Knowledge
1. Asks child to locate book parts (front,
back, bottom, or top).
1. Identifies book parts (front,
back, bottom, or top).

2. Asks child where you begin to read
the story.
2. Identifies where the story
begins.

3. Asks child to identify a letter or a
word.
3. Identifies a letter or a word.
Support Comprehension/Vocabulary
4. Asks open-ended questions or
requests predictions about the story.
4. Responds to questions or
makes predictions about the story.

5. Points to pictures and words to help
the child understand the story.
5. Responds to parent’s picture or
word cues or identifies cues on
his or her own.

6. Asks child to recall information from
the book/story.
6. Recalls information from the
book/story.

7. Pauses to answer a child’s question. 7. Asks questions
8. Elaborates on or rephrases child’s
ideas.
8. Spontaneously offers ideas
about the story.

9. Relates the story to real life. 9. Relates the story to real life.
Phonological Awareness
10. Calls child’s attention to rhyming
words in the story.
10. Identifies rhyming words in
the story.

11. Directs child’s attention to syllables
in words.
11. Recognizes that words are
made up of syllables.

12. Directs child’s attention to initial or
ending sounds in words (onset or rime)
12. Identifies initial or ending
sounds in words.

13. Directs child’s attention to repeated
words or phrases.
13. Tries to repeat the common
words or phrases.

Attention to Text
14. Has child sitting near or on parent’s
lap.
14. Sits near or on parent’s lap.
15. Uses storytelling voice/animation. 15. Responds to parent’s voice
tone by smiling, copying,
gesturing, or paying close
attention.

16. Redirects child’s attention to the
book or keeps child engaged in the story.
16. Redirects or maintains his or
her attention to the text.

17. Gives child opportunity to hold
book, touch book, or turn pages.
17. Holds book or turns pages on
his or her own or when directed.

Scoring: No tallies: 0 point; 1-2 tallies: 1 point; 3 or more tallies: 2 points.
(Dixon-Krauss et al., 2010)

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 172
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS (PRE INTERVENTION)
1. How often do you read with your child?
2. On average, how long do you read with your child at one sitting?
3. Describe the setting(s) where you typically read with your child.
4. Describe the routines, if any, you use when you read with your child.
5. What strategies, if any, do you use to engage your child with the story/book?
6. What strategies, if any, do you use to help your child understand the story/book?
7. What strategies, if any, do you use to help your child attend to sounds and words in the
story/book?
8. What training, if any, have you had focused on reading with your child?
9. Describe what you consider to be a successful experience reading with your child.
10. Describe challenges you face when reading with your child.

A DIALOGIC READING INTERVENTION FOR PARENTS 173
APPENDIX D: PARENT PERCEPTION SURVEY
1. How do you feel your participation in the dialogic reading intervention affected your self-
efficacy for reading with your child?
2. How do you feel your participation in the dialogic reading intervention affected your
practices when reading with your child?
3. Did you use any of the job aids provided during the training when reading with your child at
home?
a. If so, how did you use the job aids?
b. What aspects of the job aids were most useful?
c. What changes, if any, would you make to the job aids?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Supplemental literacy instruction for students with Down syndrome: a program evaluation

PDF

Play, read, learn: building young Black males literacy skills through an activity-based intervention

PDF

Remote learning and parent engagement during a crisis

PDF

Math and science academy literacy instruction: student study strategies, self-perception as readers, and reading achievement

PDF

Motivational, parental, and cultural influences on achievement and persistence in basic skills mathematics at the community college

PDF

Self-reflective practices and procedures to systematically examine reading comprehension instruction

PDF

The relationship of teachers' parenting styles and Asian American students' reading motivation

PDF

Examining Latino parents' perspective on parent involvement at the secondary level: why should we care

PDF

The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students

PDF

The parent voice: an exploratory study to understand Latino parent involvement in schools

PDF

What is the relationship between early childhood teachers' training on the development of their teaching self-efficacy?

PDF

Latino parental aspirations and literacy practices related to children's reading engagement

PDF

An examination of the protective factors that facilitate motivation and educational attainment among foster youth

PDF

The relationship between parenting styles, career decision self-efficacy, and career maturity of Asian American college students

PDF

A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success

PDF

The influence of a humorous intervention on parent-child sexual communication

PDF

The tracking effect: tracking and the impact on self-efficacy in middle school students

PDF

Needs assessment of parents of typical children ages 4 to 5 years old

PDF

What are the relationships among program delivery, classroom experience, content knowledge, and demographics on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy?

PDF

Literacy practices of 1.5 generation Korean American parents with three to five year old children

Asset Metadata

Creator Regur, Carey E. (author)

Core Title A dialogic reading intervention for parents of children with Down syndrome

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/06/2013

Defense Date 03/07/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag dialogic reading,Down syndrome,OAI-PMH Harvest,oral language,parent-child book reading,reading comprehension,self-efficacy

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Gallagher, Pat (committee member), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member)

Creator Email carey.regur@gmail.com,cregur@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-251908

Unique identifier UC11288100

Identifier etd-RegurCarey-1659.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-251908 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RegurCarey-1659.pdf

Dmrecord 251908

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Regur, Carey E.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA